clayborg added a comment. In D58792#1414964 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58792#1414964>, @labath wrote:
> In D58792#1414191 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58792#1414191>, @shafik wrote: > > > It stood out to me that some of the conversions were not `const` and I can > > see that `IsValid` is not consistently `const` across the API but after > > talking to @jingham it is unfortunately something we can't change. > > > Yes, that is unfortunate. I can think of three things that we could do > differently though: > > 1. add a `const` version of `IsValid` where it is missing, and have and > always-const `operator bool` which uses that > 2. give up on constness and just have a non-const `operator bool` everywhere > 3. add a const `operator bool` everywhere, and have `IsValid` (const or > non-const) call into that "const" is useless when your class contains a shared pointer or a unique pointer. It also changes the API mangling which we can't do. So I vote for give up on const as you can call non const methods in any shared and unique pointers because const is only protecting the pointer from changing. > Each option has different tradeoffs, and it's not really clear to me which > one is better. I am happy to implement whichever you think is best. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58792/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58792 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
