On 26.08.24 08:43, Ville Voutilainen wrote: >> IMHO, (1) is not an acceptable option. Us C++ professionals having identified >> this problem after years of it lying dormant, it behooves us, at the >> very least, to educate our users about this, e.g. by adding docs, and >> maybe a qWarning() in ~QVariant(), if we don't do (2). > > If it's not an issue, why is (1) unacceptable?
It's _guesstimated_ to be no issue, based on sampling qt5.git and qt-creator.git. What is unacceptable in (1) (doing nothing) is not even _informing_ users about what we found¹, so _they_ can decide for themselves what to do. ¹ neither at compile-time, nor runtime, nor coding time (static checker) nor at documentation reading time. We want our APIs to be easy to use and hard to abuse. It's easy to abuse QVariant in this way, so it behooves us to try to do _something_ about it. Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@qt.io> (he/his) Principal Software Engineer The Qt Company Erich-Thilo-Str. 10 12489 Berlin, Germany www.qt.io Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Jouni Lintunen Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
