https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400632
--- Comment #5 from Christoph Cullmann <cullm...@kde.org> --- >> exception safety is of no concern for us. >* I find such information strange for C++ programmers. >* I assume that involved parties would care more for involved software >development concerns under specific circumstances. Why? We don't use exceptions, like a lot of other software projects. See e.g. LLVM/clang's stance for this http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#do-not-use-rtti-or-exceptions As we don't use them nor do we use any libraries that emit any exceptions that we want to catch, it is totally valid to not care for them. Even if we would need to catch some emitted by low-level libraries, one should do that directly at the call-sites to encapsule that. 0% of the code in KTextEditor is prepared to be interrupted by exceptions, it makes no sense to no start to pseudo-care for that at a few locations. I see value in making code easier to maintain for things we need to take care of, e.g. resource management via smart pointers, doing locking via mutex lockers and not manual lock/unlock, .... > > On the other side, I am not sure why this things are not just in-place > > members, > > which would avoid the heap-allocation. > Would you like to reduce dynamic memory allocation instead? If that change doesn't lead to some include nightmare, I would go for in-place members, yes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
