labath added a comment. In D69230#1718191 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69230#1718191>, @lawrence_danna wrote:
> Seems like there's a consensus that if we have something like this it should > be called `DenseOptional`, and changes to `Optional` should only make it more > like `std::optional` I am not sure I would call that a "consensus" -- my interpretation of @dblaikie's comment is that he does not want an extra dense optional type either. Which I disagree with, because I think it would be useful to have some form of a compressed optional storage, as that's something that is currently often implemented via bitfields, magic invalid values, etc. That said, I think you have convinced me that having different optional representations for a single type is not a good idea. It's probably better to use some form of a "strong" typedef to achieve that instead. 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
