dblaikie added a comment. In D69230#1717675 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69230#1717675>, @serge-sans-paille wrote:
> On a personal note, as much as I like the idea (and I really do like it), I'd > rather have llvm::optional sticking to std::optional interface. (short-ish reply, while busy with the dev meeting) Yep, that's about where I am - I think llvm::Optional should move towards the std::optional API. And I don't think maintaining a separate/additional type for this functionality is worth the complexity of having a distinct type compared to something more and more people will be readily familiar with (std::optional). But, like serge, I really do like the idea of exposing one or more "secret" States from types to use spare bits, padding-ish bits, etc, for DenseMap, PointerIntPair/PointerUnion, etc. (be nice to unify these extra state bits, even, if possible, across all these types so you could potentially compose them - if you've got 3 spare bits in your underlying representation (say, an aligned pointer) perhaps you could have a DenseSet<Optional<T*>> with elements that are only sizeof(T*) for instance) 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
