xazax.hun added a comment.
In D66486#1643374 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66486#1643374>, @mgehre wrote:
> > Also it feels a bit weird to change the ownership semantics in a derived
> > class, I bet that would violate the Liskov substitution principle.
>
> And then we see that llvm::OwningArrayRef inherits from llvm::ArrayRef ...
> But maybe this direction (strengthening a Pointer into an Owner)
> is okay.
I am not sure. Consider the following code:
ArrayRef f() {
ArrayRef r = getRef();
return r;
}
According to the substitution principle I should be able to replace `r` with a
derived class:
ArrayRef f() {
OwningArrayRef r = getOwningRef();
return r;
}
But this will introduce a lifetime issue.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66486/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66486
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
