Repository navigation
Delete operator=(const m_class &p_rval) on wrapper classes - #2027
Merged
Merged
Conversation
dsnopek
force-pushed
the
delete-operator-equals
branch
from
July 25, 2026 12:36
190daa0 to
8857e28
Compare
dsnopek
force-pushed
the
delete-operator-equals
branch
from
July 25, 2026 12:36
8857e28 to
e65e9ad
Compare
Ivorforce
approved these changes
Jul 26, 2026
Ivorforce
left a comment
Ivorforce
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense to me. Probably should do the same upstream; it's also using the {} version.
I've seen at least 3 instances of people on discord being confused about Object ownership (using Object as a stack local instead of a pointer) and then getting weird issues when using operator=. This should improve the situation at least a bit.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixes #1995
This seems like it'd be OK, given that the previous
operator=(const m_class &p_rval)did nothing, and we don't really want wrapper classes to be copyable by value (they should always be pointers)But I'm not 100% sure that I understand the full implications - it'd be great to get feedback from someone with stronger C++ knowledge!
FYI, Godot's
Objectalso declares an emptyoperator=(const m_class &p_rval)- if this makes sense in godot-cpp, maybe it should also be deleted in Godot as well?