On 02/02/2020 17:38, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
On 01/02/20 15:32, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:Il 01/02/20 12:37, Alberto Mardegan ha scritto:Do we need to have such a counterpart? In my work experience, when I'm not allowed to use Qt and am restricted to the STL, all the times I had to use std::unique_ptr was to get the same behaviour as a QScopedPointer.So you never had to pass one to a function, return one from a function, create a vector of them? Color me *very* suspicious.Believe it or not :-) I find std::shared_ptr easier to use when passing pointers to and from functions. And I never needed to put them into an array.
This is a logical fallacy; "I don't need it, noone else does".
So, I don't really care about std::unique_ptr, but I like Vitaly's suggestion of having a QUniquePointer with a nice data() method.How about working with upstream and convincing them that having data() (in addition to get()) on smart pointers is a good idea? Is having data() the _only_ argument here?The STL could still add a method made up of two words in the future, and it's unlikely that they'll use camelCase (or that they'd accept a camelCase variant).
And I still see no problem in that? What is the problem at looking a bit outside one's comfort zone (or one's bubble) and realizing that simply because the Standard Library uses snake_case, we can live with it just fine?
My 2 c, -- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
