> -----Original Message----- > From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=theqtcompany.com@qt- > project.org [mailto:development- > bounces+kai.koehne=theqtcompany....@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of > Julien Blanc > Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:08 PM > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] QTextStream::readLine(0) is an ambiguous > overload in 5.5 > > On 17/05/2015 15:19, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Andre Somers > <an...@familiesomers.nl> wrote: > >> In the spirit of option b), would it be an option to have the method > >> take a QString& instead of a QString*? That would resolve the ambiguity. > > It would solve, but Qt APIs use pointers instead of references for > > out-arguments (and that's a very good code policy). > > That *was* a good policy (it has its drawbacks). C++11 tends to remove > the need of raw pointers, C++14 makes a step further in that direction. > Sticking to such a rule would mean going against the general evolution > of the language.
Can you elaborate? We're talking about in/out parameters here, where raw pointers IMO are still perfectly valid. What do you expect the signature of readLine(QString *line) to be in C++14? Herb Sutter had a nice blog post about this a while ago: http://herbsutter.com/2013/06/05/gotw-91-solution-smart-pointer-parameters/ He suggests to "use a * if you need to express null [...], otherwise prefer to use a &" though, where our coding standard suggests to use * for out parameters. Anyhow, this is an old argument that has nothing to do with C++11 , or smart pointers ... Regards Kai _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
