kastiglione wrote: > ### Goal > > Every `ValueObjectSP` will have an actual value and will never be equal to > `nullptr`.
I would like to learn more about the goal. It seems like the existing code will result in widespread use of `optional<shared_ptr<ValueObject>>`. Is the plan to reduce these cases to a smaller amount? If not, then it's not clear to me how having the codebase predominantly use `optional<shared_ptr<ValueObject>>` is better than mostly using `shared_ptr<ValueObject>`. Is this refactoring a known (named) pattern? Are there other examples of where a `shared_ptr<T>` is replaced with `optional<shared_ptr<T>>`? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74912 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
