On 01/02/20 02:46, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote: > About QUniquePointer: what's the point of reinventing std::unique_ptr > under a different name?
A Qt-ish API! > * Is it just going to be an alias, to be more Qtish? Then why > QSharedPointer is NOT going to be an alias? > > * Is it not going to be an alias? NIH all over again? It's not clear to me what you mean by "alias"; if you mean a subclass, then I'd be against it, because there's a (very small indeed) risk that in the future the STL adds some methods that might conflict with ours, or would not be Qtish enough. If we can resue the STL implementation, that's a good thing, but it should be an implementation detail; and I don't think we should care about NIH, when we are talking of classes that are unlikely to pose a great maintenance burden. Ciao, Alberto -- http://www.mardy.it - Geek in un lingua international _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
