On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 03:15:11PM +0000, Vitaly Fanaskov wrote: > I want to summarize intermediate results of the discussion and return it > back to the track. > > > Subject: using smart pointers in the API. > Good idea. Better to use than not because of automatic lifetime > management,
*shrug* You seem to repeat your initial statements. QObject parents _do_ manage lifetime to start with. > Subject: raw pointers for passing mandatory parameters vs. using > references. > Allow both approaches, recommend using references (and/or smart > pointers) when acceptable. > Not too many arguments collected here, just > try to make Qt API more modern. Again only your statement. The issue itself has been discussed over and over again. Allowing _both_ I have not seen actively endorsed by anyone, this only makes a messy incosnsistent API. > There are a few irrelevant discussions. Start a new thread if you want > to continue discussing them, please. > > Irrelevant subject: smart pointers vs. parent-child lifetime management > model. Sure. Because it would void the 'lifetime management' line of reasoning. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development