On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 10:44:19PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Marco Bubke <marco.bu...@qt.io> wrote: > I'm terribly sad that this thread has been derailed in an unrelated > discussion.
Asking about Creator and BC on @dev was a perfect attempt at trolling as far as I can tell. > Please, could we all *stop* doing that and let's discuss that (*extremely > important*) matter on another thread. > > Staying on track: I would love to see (again) Creator as a playground for > how well the GSL can be integrated into a Qt project. For me it still is one of the main reasons to have Qt Creator at all, and I still think it serves this purpose well in practice. For the concrete matter of owner<T> I *personally* see not much a reason to have it, as for some reason I seemingly rarely ever run into those unclear ownerships of naked T* and consequently don't understand where all this hatred comes from. But then, owner<T> is as non-intrusive as it gets, and since I have a couple of '// owned' or '// not owned' comments in my code it looks like having that compiler-checkable would actually make sense. So I would not oppose using owner<T> in Creator code. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
