Use newer Chromium helper macro for defining move-only type.

mojo/edk/embedder/scoped_platform_handle.h

Index: mojo/edk/embedder/scoped_platform_handle.h
diff --git a/mojo/edk/embedder/scoped_platform_handle.h b/mojo/edk/embedder/scoped_platform_handle.h
index 2919b04622977c69c76d53d72dc431a54074f6b1..5ab6d47f6ec886db72fde53bb04eabbdb1de9181 100644
--- a/mojo/edk/embedder/scoped_platform_handle.h
+++ b/mojo/edk/embedder/scoped_platform_handle.h
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ namespace mojo {
 namespace embedder {
 
 class MOJO_SYSTEM_IMPL_EXPORT ScopedPlatformHandle {
-  MOVE_ONLY_TYPE_FOR_CPP_03(ScopedPlatformHandle, RValue)
+  MOVE_ONLY_TYPE_WITH_MOVE_CONSTRUCTOR_FOR_CPP_03(ScopedPlatformHandle)
 
  public:
   ScopedPlatformHandle() {}
@@ -22,9 +22,10 @@ class MOJO_SYSTEM_IMPL_EXPORT ScopedPlatformHandle {
   ~ScopedPlatformHandle() { handle_.CloseIfNecessary(); }
 
   // Move-only constructor and operator=.
-  ScopedPlatformHandle(RValue other) : handle_(other.object->release()) {}
-  ScopedPlatformHandle& operator=(RValue other) {
-    handle_ = other.object->release();
+  ScopedPlatformHandle(ScopedPlatformHandle&& other)
+      : handle_(other.release()) {}
+  ScopedPlatformHandle& operator=(ScopedPlatformHandle&& other) {
+    handle_ = other.release();

[jamesr, 2015/04/03 17:02:45]

this operator is incorrect, it doesn't handle self-assignment correctly

[mgraczyk, 2015/04/03 18:30:00]

Care to elaborate?

Here's how I see it. The requirement for self-assignment in a move assignment
operator is that it leave the operands on either side of the operator in a valid
state.  The state itself is unspecified.  It can be any valid state, but
generally we want self-assignment to be a noop.

If we write:

ScopedPlatformHandle(h) handle;
handle = std::move(handle);

What happens is

PlatformHandle rv = handle.handle_;
handle.handle_ = PlatformHandle();
handle.handle_ = rv;

which is a noop.

Is that not what you see?  I don't mind adding a check for self-assignment. 
It's more clear that it is correct in that case but I didn't want to change the
method body in this CL.

[jamesr, 2015/04/03 19:18:23]

Hmm, good point but I think having an idiomatically correct body would be much
clearer.  This works today because PlatformHandle is a simple data type but if
in the future it becomes something more complex in the future this body will
stop working as expected.

[mgraczyk, 2015/04/03 19:33:39]

I agree and added the check.

Although, too many "idioms" like this lead to code bloat from inlined move
constructors...

     return *this;
   }