On Monday, 17 February 2020 03:14:55 PST Karsten Heimrich wrote: > Still this does not mean we should move on without rethinking the > possibility of using std:: smart pointers in newly created API's; either in > new modules and or to a given extent in existing ones. Thus I would like to > propose the adaptation of our coding style and coding conventions to > explicitly _allow_ the use of std:: smart pointers where we see fit. > Hopefully in the long run this would also make it easier to transition > current API's from owning raw pointers to std:: smart pointers. > > Does this sound like a more reasonable approach?
The problem is that new API may still be interacting with QObject pointers. Do you propose using Daniel's classes for transferring ownership (reparenting) or indicating a non-owning transfer for those too? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel System Software Products _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development