On 08/01/2014 03:48 AM, Neil wrote: > Only UniquePtr's own copy and assignment operators should take UniquePtr&&. > Other call sites should either take const UniquePtr& (if they will not take > ownership of the pointer), UniquePtr& (if they may or may not need to take > ownership of the pointer) or UniquePtr (if they will take ownership of the > pointer).
Oops, you're largely right. There are perhaps rare cases where it might make sense to accept UniquePtr&&, but it's pretty uncommon. I somewhat meant to elaborate on this in the blog post, then forgot. Probably I won't bother at this point. But, largely what I would have said is encapsulated in this Stack Overflow question/answer: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8114276/how-do-i-pass-a-unique-ptr-argument-to-a-constructor-or-a-function This discussion is much less intricate and technical than the rvalue reference series I linked in the post as "subtle", so it's worth a read if you're interested and won't take up that much time to digest. At the same time, it's largely an expansion of what NeilAway said, so feel free not to read it if you read his post. :-) Jeff _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
