free login betvictor down_free login royal panda tennis rules_free login bet365?apk

free online bettingSun, 16 Dec 2018 20:41:25 -0800

> On Dec 16, 2018, at 7:43 PM, Fujii Hironori <> 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 

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

webkit-dev mailing list

Reply via email to