search for: nullopt

Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "nullopt".

2018 Jan 24
2
[llvm] r322838 - [ADT] Split optional to only include copy mechanics and dtor for non-trivial types.
...clangd code (no failing test, mea culpa), because it changed the move semantics. Previously: a moved-from llvm::Optional was None (for all types). Now: a moved-from llvm::Optional is None (for non-trivial types), and has the old value (for trivial types). FWIW, a moved-from std::optional is *not* nullopt, and contains the moved-from value. This seems sad to me, and kills a nice use of optional (this one <https://reviews.llvm.org/source/clang-tools-extra/browse/clang-tools-extra/trunk/clangd/Function.h;323350$162>), but there's some value in consistency with std. Either way, I wanted to b...
2018 Jan 24
0
[llvm] r322838 - [ADT] Split optional to only include copy mechanics and dtor for non-trivial types.
...culpa), because it > changed the move semantics. > > Previously: a moved-from llvm::Optional was None (for all types). > Now: a moved-from llvm::Optional is None (for non-trivial types), and has > the old value (for trivial types). > > FWIW, a moved-from std::optional is *not* nullopt, and contains the > moved-from value. > This seems sad to me, and kills a nice use of optional (this one), but > there's some value in consistency with std. > > Either way, I wanted to bring this up because > - I wasn't sure it was explicitly considered, and should probab...
2018 Jan 24
1
[llvm] r322838 - [ADT] Split optional to only include copy mechanics and dtor for non-trivial types.
...ed the move semantics. > > > > Previously: a moved-from llvm::Optional was None (for all types). > > Now: a moved-from llvm::Optional is None (for non-trivial types), and has > > the old value (for trivial types). > > > > FWIW, a moved-from std::optional is *not* nullopt, and contains the > > moved-from value. > > This seems sad to me, and kills a nice use of optional (this one), but > > there's some value in consistency with std. > > > > Either way, I wanted to bring this up because > > - I wasn't sure it was explicitly...