> You seem to repeat your initial statements. Yes, because most of the participants of this discussion tend to agree, as far as I can see.
On 2/11/20 8:19 PM, André Pönitz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 03:15:11PM +0000, Vitaly Fanaskov wrote: >> I want to summarize intermediate results of the discussion and return it >> back to the track. >> >> >> Subject: using smart pointers in the API. >> Good idea. Better to use than not because of automatic lifetime >> management, > *shrug* > > You seem to repeat your initial statements. > > QObject parents _do_ manage lifetime to start with. > >> Subject: raw pointers for passing mandatory parameters vs. using >> references. >> Allow both approaches, recommend using references (and/or smart >> pointers) when acceptable. >> Not too many arguments collected here, just >> try to make Qt API more modern. > Again only your statement. > > The issue itself has been discussed over and over again. > > Allowing _both_ I have not seen actively endorsed by anyone, > this only makes a messy incosnsistent API. > >> There are a few irrelevant discussions. Start a new thread if you want >> to continue discussing them, please. >> >> Irrelevant subject: smart pointers vs. parent-child lifetime management >> model. > Sure. Because it would void the 'lifetime management' line of reasoning. > > Andre' -- Best Regards, Fanaskov Vitaly Senior Software Engineer The Qt Company / Qt Quick and Widgets Team _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
