On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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...
>

You're already holding a SmartPtr<T> and you want to pass it to a function
which operates on it, but since, as you say, you're not transferring
ownership, you don't need to increment or decrement the ref ct.

-Ekr
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Reply via email to