I think std::optional<Ref<Type>> looks ugly. Also, unlike RefPtr<>, I do not think it is copyable. It is pretty neat to be able to capture a RefPtr<> by value in a lambda. Also, how do you convert it to a raw pointer? myOptionalRef.value_or(nullptr) would not work. Not sure there would be a nice way to do so.
Finally, the storage space argument from Maciej is a good one. -- Chris Dumez > On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Brady Eidson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I recently worked on a patch where - because of the organic refactoring of >> the patch over its development - I ended up with a std::optional<Ref> >> instead of a RefPtr. >> >> A followup review after it had already landed pointed this out, and it got >> me to thinking: >> >> Does RefPtr do anything for us today that std::optional<Ref> doesn’t? > > The obvious things would be: uses less storage space, has a shorter name. > >> >> I kind of like the idea of replacing RefPtr with std::optional<Ref>. It >> makes it explicitly clear what object is actually holding the reference, and >> completely removes some of the confusion of “when should I use Ref vs >> RefPtr?" >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> ~Brady >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
