klimek added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13166#254730, @angelgarcia wrote:
> This raises a question. Do we want to do replacements when we use an alias > for std::unique_ptr? That fact that something is an unique_ptr might be an > implementation detail that should not be exposed, but it could also happen > that the alias is there only for brevity. What do you think? Good question. Generally, it seems to me that aliasing unique_ptr wouldn't seem useful apart from having a shortcut; unique_ptr is special in a couple of ways, which would make it particularly weird as an "implementation detail". My take on it is that we want to replace those, until we find real use cases that warrant a more complex implementation. http://reviews.llvm.org/D13166 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
