On 2014-12-22 6:52 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:35 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org <mailto:dba...@dbaron.org>> wrote: On Monday 2014-12-22 18:21 -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-12-22 6:07 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > >On Monday 2014-12-22 17:54 -0500, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > >>On 2014-12-22 4:56 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > >>>I think removing implicit conversions to T* will make a lot of code > >>>in the tree uglier (".get()" everywhere). That might, in turn, > >>>encourage people to do worse things to avoid having to write .get() > >>>everywhere; it's worth thinking about what those things will be. > >> > >>Do you have any examples of those bad things? (FWIW I'm all for > >>making bad things impossible.) > > > >* using raw pointers instead of smart pointers > > I am planning on making that impossible [*] in 2015. I presume you mean making direct calls to AddRef and Release impossible, and not raw pointers in general. > >* making functions take nsRefPtr<T>& instead of T*, leading to > > unnecessary risk of mutation of the caller's pointer and extra > > indirection > > > > * ... and perhaps the same for getters > > Are there good use cases for having functions accept an > nsRefPtr<T>&? If not, we can outlaw them. I've seen a few, but it's probably rare. (Is that pattern still used all over editor?) I frequently use const RefPtr<T>&? or const UniquePtr<T>&. Is this something that people object to?
What is your use case? I guess it's not transferring ownership. I don't really understand why one would use these classes as argument when they're not trying to worry about ownership...
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
