On Samstag, 1. Februar 2020 10:15:02 CET you wrote: > Il 01/02/20 09:27, Allan Sandfeld Jensen ha scritto: > > To me the name is still perfect. It makes perfect sense. Just because it > > is > > movable doesn't mean you move the object itself, a move moves the content > > of the object. So each move triggers a move of the payload of a scoped > > pointer to another scoped pointer in another scope. > > > > I never understood why anyone would think the name would make that > > impossible. > The counter argument is: it would imply that the _pointer_ escapes the > _scope_. > Not the smart pointer, it never leaves. Only the raw pointer does, and only because you have moved it out of the scoped pointer, and it into a new one.
> This conversation is 9 years too old -- the ship has sailed. > std::unique_ptr is the vocabulary type that is on every C++ book > teaches, every C++ talk explains, every C++ project uses (all over the > place inside Qt itself). Unless some extraordinary argument appears, > that's the name that Qt should also use. It is still a terrible name. Unique pointer refers to something std::unique_ptr can abstractly achieve, but not what it actually is. Note I am not saying we should duplicate std::unique_ptr. I would prefer we didn't. But if we did we should use a better name. 'Allan _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development