I think std::optional<Ref<Type>> looks ugly. Also, unlike RefPtr<>, I do not think it is copyable. It is pretty neat to be able to capture a RefPtr<> by value in a lambda.
Also, how do you convert it to a raw pointer? myOptionalRef.value_or(nullptr) would not work. Not sure there would be a nice way to do so.

Finally, the storage space argument from Maciej is a good one.
 
--
 Chris Dumez




On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:



On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Brady Eidson <beidson@apple.com> wrote:

I recently worked on a patch where - because of the organic refactoring of the patch over its development - I ended up with a std::optional<Ref> instead of a RefPtr.

A followup review after it had already landed pointed this out, and it got me to thinking:

Does RefPtr do anything for us today that std::optional<Ref> doesn’t?

The obvious things would be: uses less storage space, has a shorter name.


I kind of like the idea of replacing RefPtr with std::optional<Ref>. It makes it explicitly clear what object is actually holding the reference, and completely removes some of the confusion of “when should I use Ref vs RefPtr?"

Thoughts?

Thanks,
~Brady
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev