free login bodog 88_login bonus betsson logo png_login bonus newcastle?united sponsor 2019

Sun, 16 Dec 2018 23:59:30 -0800

> On Dec 16, 2018, at 8:37 PM, Chris Dumez <> wrote:
>> 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 
> 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 think it would be easier to enforce a rule of ¡°always use WTF::Optional 
instead of std::optional¡± than a rule of ¡°use std::exchange more, but sometimes 
you really need WTFMove(), but don¡¯t use move when it would be wrong to do so¡±. 
Better to set up the code to create simple rules that don¡¯t require judgment 

>> 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
>> free online betting
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list

webkit-dev mailing list

Reply via email to