The standard wants you to specialize things in std sometimes, and not other
times... I’m not sure here’s clear guidance here. :(
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:46 AM Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Maciej
> On Sep 1, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>
>>> Does RefPtr do anything for us today that std::optional doesn’t?
>>
>> The obvious things would be: uses less storage space
>
> Grumble. If that’s true (which, thinking
> On Sep 1, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>
>>> Does RefPtr do anything for us today that std::optional doesn’t?
>>
>> The obvious things would be: uses less storage space
>
> Grumble. If that’s true (which, thinking
> On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> Does RefPtr do anything for us today that std::optional doesn’t?
>
> The obvious things would be: uses less storage space
Grumble. If that’s true (which, thinking about it, of course it is true) this
is pretty much a nonstarter. So
> On Sep 1, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Chris Dumez wrote:
>
> I think std::optional> looks ugly. Also, unlike RefPtr<>, I do not
> think it is copyable. It is pretty neat to be able to capture a RefPtr<> by
> value in a lambda.
> Also, how do you convert it to a raw pointer? myOptionalRef.value_or(nu
I think std::optional> looks ugly. Also, unlike RefPtr<>, I do not
think it is copyable. It is pretty neat to be able to capture a RefPtr<> by
value in a lambda.
Also, how do you convert it to a raw pointer? myOptionalRef.value_or(nullptr)
would not work. Not sure there would be a nice way to do
> On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> I recently worked on a patch where - because of the organic refactoring of
> the patch over its development - I ended up with a std::optional instead
> of a RefPtr.
>
> A followup review after it had already landed pointed this out, and i
> On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> I recently worked on a patch where - because of the organic refactoring of
> the patch over its development - I ended up with a std::optional instead
> of a RefPtr.
>
> A followup review after it had already landed pointed this out, and i
I recently worked on a patch where - because of the organic refactoring of the
patch over its development - I ended up with a std::optional instead of a
RefPtr.
A followup review after it had already landed pointed this out, and it got me
to thinking:
Does RefPtr do anything for us today that
9 matches
Mail list logo