clayborg 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>>`?
I agree. Returning a empty shared pointer is better than adding std:optional on top of that. Hopefully we can avoid that. 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
