Honestly, a sentence in the class Doxygen comment that this is supposed to be passed by value works just as well :-)
-- adrian > On Jul 24, 2020, at 12:31 AM, Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann > <teempe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We could make a custom attribute for types that should be always passed by > value and then maybe have Clang handle that. The problem seems generic enough > that maybe other people could find this useful. > > - Raphael > >> On 24 Jul 2020, at 09:27, Pavel Labath via lldb-commits >> <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On 23/07/2020 18:24, Adrian Prantl wrote: >>> Is there some clever C++ way to prohibit taking an object's address >>> (similar to how you can delete a copy constructor)? >>> >>> -- adrian >> >> You could =delete the address-of operator, but redefining unary & is >> generally frowned upon and I am not sure it will achieve what you want >> -- it would not prevent anyone from binding a reference to an existing >> object. >> >> I don't think there's any way to prevent that, and even if it were, it >> would likely break too much generic code which expects to accept objects >> by const&. >> >> pl >> _______________________________________________ >> lldb-commits mailing list >> lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits > _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
