Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For c2py of stl types take argument by value and move elements #35
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
For c2py of stl types take argument by value and move elements #35
Changes from all commits
61b727a
74fc95a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't rather
std::move(op).value() or *(std::move(op)) [ the second is somewhat less clear]
you have to move the op itself I think.. Not sure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There should be no problem with the syntax.
std::move(*op)
We invoke
T& operator*() &;
and then move from the
T&
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same question:
I would have said :
std::get<0>(std::move(p))
move p first, then using (4) in https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/pair/get
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So with
std::get<1>(std::move(p))
we then use ap
which has already been moved from? Isn't this something we want to avoid at all cost? Is this well-defined?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Even if its safe this will most definitely trigger false-positives for static analyzers / warnings that warn about use after move!?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah wait...
std::array is STACK object, you can not really move it always copy.
What shall we do here ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree, this will in fact lead to an additional unnecessary stack copy.
Can we really avoid providing all three overloads in these cases?