Re: pointer check in unit tests

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 03.11.20 10:21, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On 03/11/2020 09:37, Miklos Vajna wrote:
(If you see a case where a pointer is returned and it can't be ever
nullptr, then we should fix the return type to a be reference. Caolan
did lots of fixes like that recently.)

That's up for debate.  For example, if a sufficiently large fraction of call sites wants a pointer, it can be awkward to change a function's return type from pointer to reference.  (And doing so without carefully auditing all call sites can silently introduce regressions.)

T& is something rather different than T* plus "cannot be null".  Just as the C++ type system isn't capable of expressing the type "int, but never 42", it isn't capable of expressing the type "T*, but never nullptr".

on a related note, i've heard it claimed that you can have a "T&, but can be null" type in modern C++, as std::optional<std::reference_wrapper<T>>.

although with ergonomics like

    std::optional<std::reference_wrapper<Foo>> foo(...);
    foo->get().member;

i'm not sure how seriously to take such claims.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice




[Index of Archives]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Photo]

  Powered by Linux