On 01/02/20 15:32, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote: > Il 01/02/20 12:37, Alberto Mardegan ha scritto: >> Do we need to have such a counterpart? In my work experience, when I'm >> not allowed to use Qt and am restricted to the STL, all the times I had >> to use std::unique_ptr was to get the same behaviour as a QScopedPointer. > > So you never had to pass one to a function, return one from a function, > create a vector of them? Color me *very* suspicious.
Believe it or not :-) I find std::shared_ptr easier to use when passing pointers to and from functions. And I never needed to put them into an array. > The same subset is available in the Standard Library. The type you're > looking for is "const std::unique_ptr". Sure, I'm just saying that "QScopedPointer" is more descriptive. >> So, I don't really care about std::unique_ptr, but I like Vitaly's >> suggestion of having a QUniquePointer with a nice data() method. > > How about working with upstream and convincing them that having data() > (in addition to get()) on smart pointers is a good idea? Is having > data() the _only_ argument here? The STL could still add a method made up of two words in the future, and it's unlikely that they'll use camelCase (or that they'd accept a camelCase variant). 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
