Hi, It seem the community it's still pissed off on TQC, so I'm going to break the ice here :). I'll personally go with std::* (not only for smart ptrs but for everything else (e.g. containers), except QString of course). QPointer still needs to stay as there is nothing in std:: which we can use (unless it's not needed anymore). Regarding the second issue, I'd like to have (const) references & shared ptrs only and to avoid raw pointers.
Cheers, BogDan. În ziua de vineri, 31 ianuarie 2020, la 12:07:52 EET, Vitaly Fanaskov a scris: > Hello everyone, > > We’ve been discussing for a while how Qt6 API can be improved with using > smart pointers. Recently we came into some conclusions and want to > discuss them with the community. > > Smart pointers are for sure much better to use than raw pointers for > many reasons. They manage lifetime automatically, show ownership > semantic, and make code safer. It’s planned to officially recommend them > to use in Qt6 API instead of raw pointers whenever this is possible. For > sure, it should only be a choice for newly designed API. > > But how to use them in the API and which way is preferable is still > unclear. There are two main options we have: > > 1) Use std::* smart pointers as-is. > > 2) Add Qt-style wrappers around std::* smart pointers and move old > implementations of Qt smart pointers to the Qt5Compact module. > > Both options have pros and cons. It would be useful to hear your > thoughts on it. It’s worth mentioning that some other options, like > using Qt smart pointers as-is, were also discussed. They were found less > suitable, but feel free to share your opinion if you disagree. > > Another thing to discuss is whether we should use raw pointers in the > API at all or not. There are a few options again: > > 1) Yes > > 2) No. Use “modern” approaches instead (pass mandatory dependencies by > either reference or const reference when using smart pointers makes no > sense, use something optional-like or tuples to return extra data from > functions, and so on) > > 3) Mix 1 and 2. > > There are pros and cons for all options. Share your opinion once again, > please. > > If there are any related things to discuss, let’s do that in this thread. > > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
