labath added a comment. In D69230#1720246 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69230#1720246>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D69230#1720048 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69230#1720048>, @labath wrote: > > > That said, I think you have convinced me that having different optional > > representations for a single type is not a good idea. It's probably better > > to use some form of a "strong" typedef to achieve that instead. > > > I've not followed this part of the thread properly - could you/someone > rephrase the concerns here? Sure. lldb currently has types like lldb::pid_t, and uses identifiers like LLDB_INVALID_PID for the "None" value. I wanted to define pid_t as something like `Optional<some_integer_type, PIDInfo>`, where PIDInfo would specify what is the representation of an "invalid" pid. The reason I abandoned this idea was that this arrangement makes it impossible to represent (in the type system) a pid which is always valid. I now think that it would be better (at least for this use case) to have `pid_t be a "strong" typedef of the integer type. At that point you can specify an "invalid" value for this type even without a separate Optional template argument... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69230/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69230 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
