> On March 20, 2014, 1:03 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/state/log.cpp, line 340
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/19007/diff/1/?file=515951#file515951line340>
> >
> >     This line is broken with the new const & Option::get semantics!
> 
> Benjamin Hindman wrote:
>     That is nasty nasty nasty, looking forward to rvalue references because 
> this would have been a sufficient reason not to make all those optimizations 
> yet! Thanks for the careful review Ben!

It's definitely unfortunate, but I think you're finding it extra nasty because 
we've been accustomed to getting copies in the stout abstractions. I agree we 
should circle back on these with C++11 and try to find a nice way of avoiding 
the copy, perhaps by providing a separate, more explicit, move operation.


- Ben


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/19007/#review37303
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 31, 2014, 7:11 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/19007/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 31, 2014, 7:11 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This is a combination of both https://reviews.apache.org/r/17423 and 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/17424 which have been merged to make it easier 
> to make changes.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/Makefile.am 47d03b393f68ebd4e9eba3206798a939078023c0 
>   src/messages/state.proto 7f7a8a505d6f24b01fec0c3ad47b0e15b2b17ffa 
>   src/state/log.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/state/log.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/tests/state_tests.cpp d0e084070c566ee7d751a8e1279772e05b966145 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19007/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Hindman
> 
>

Reply via email to