> On Dec 16, 2018, at 7:43 PM, Fujii Hironori <fujii.hiron...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't like the proposal because it encourages misuse of move. > We can use move only for values about to be destroyed.
Just for reference, there are close to 400 matches for "WTFMove(m_¡± in our code base. People do seem to rely on the state of objects after being moved out. I totally agree that the state of the object being moved out is not defined by the C++ standard. However, so far, in WebKit, we¡¯ve been careful with our move-constructors. I think that if we do not update std::optional¡¯s move constructor, then I worry we¡¯ll keep having to fix bugs in the future due to its misuse. Although, maybe this mail thread will help. That being said, I agree with your and Daniel and we should use std::exchange more. I think all the "WTFMove(m_¡± lines in our code bases should probably be replaced with std::exchange. > > I like Dan's suggestion. We should use std::exchange or std::optional::swap > for the cases. > Or, what about adding a new method WTF::Optional::release() for the case? > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev