为什么unique_ptr::release 没有用[[nodiscard]] 定义? [英] Why is unique_ptr::release not defined with [[nodiscard]]?

问题描述

C++17 添加了[[nodiscard]].

C++20 在 empty 方法上添加了 [[nodiscard]] 的使用，例如vector::empty() -- 也许， 是为了避免用户对 clear 方法的混淆(即意外调用 empty() 以clear 向量).

C++20 added the use of [[nodiscard]] on empty methods, e.g. vector::empty() -- maybe, to avoid user confusion with the method clear (i.e. calling empty() accidentally to clear the vector).

为什么 C++20 没有利用这个机会将 [[nodiscard]] 添加到 unique_ptr::release 中?

Why didn't C++20 use this opportunity to add [[nodiscard]] to unique_ptr::release?

是否存在一种有效的合理场景，可以调用 unique_ptr::release 不取返回值?

Is there a valid reasonable scenario in which one would call unique_ptr::release without taking the returned value?

以同样的方式避免用户混淆(如果这是将 [[nodiscard]] 添加到 empty 方法的原因) - 名称 release 总是很混乱，听起来像，嗯……这里会发布一些东西.

In the same manner of avoiding user confusion (if this was the reason for adding [[nodiscard]] to the empty methods) - the name release was always very confusing, sounds like, well... something is going to be released here.

添加 [[nodiscard]] 可以在某种程度上解决这个名称问题.

Adding [[nodiscard]] could fix this name issue, in a way.

推荐答案

这在将 [[nodiscard]] 添加到许多函数的论文中得到了解决.来自 P0600R1 这是关于将 [[nodiscard]] 添加到 unique_ptr::release()

This is addressed in the paper that added [[nodiscard]] to many of the functions. From P0600R1 this is the remark about adding [[nodiscard]] to unique_ptr::release()

Titus:在谷歌，3.5% 的调用会失败，但分析显示这是正确的(但奇怪的所有权语义).看反射电子邮件.

Titus: at Google 3.5% of calls would fail, but analysis showed that it was correct (but weird ownership semantics). See reflector email.

这篇关于为什么unique_ptr::release 没有用[[nodiscard]] 定义?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！