On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:12 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> [oops, meant to move this to cfe-commits in the process] > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, in the interests of demonstration I've implemented a basic pass > > at both options. I wouldn't mind someone signing off on one of these > > two - the current state isn't really viable so far as I can see, so > > it's one or the other. I personally tend towards the "reference" > > version (& in the ref_further you can see I got bored & pushed > > references further down through a few other APIs that don't need the > > optionality (nullness) of pointers anyway) but I'm not terribly fussed > > either way. > specific_iter_ref.diff LGTM. I'm less convinced by specific_iter_ref_further.diff: it introduces a lot of churn into the svn history, and since we don't consistently treat pointer arguments as nullable, I'm not sure it buys us much.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
