On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 07:55:09PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote: > On 02/02/2020 17:38, Alberto Mardegan wrote: > > 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. > > This is a logical fallacy; "I don't need it, noone else does".
But this is the argument the de-Qt-ers use when it comes to Qt convenience they don't need. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development