Update remaining files to use WeakPtr<T>::get() instead of "operator T*"

Update remaining files to use WeakPtr<T>::get() instead of "operator T*"

BUG=245942
TBR=darin@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=203872

[akalin, 2013-06-04 05:34:32]

+darin for review

will probably TBR

[akalin, 2013-06-04 06:41:47]

On 2013/06/04 05:34:32, akalin wrote:
> +darin for review
> 
> will probably TBR

TBRing!

[akalin, 2013-06-04 06:42:38]

Committed patchset #1 manually as r203872 (presubmit successful).

[danakj, 2013-06-04 14:01:14]

https://codereview.chromium.org/16136005/diff/1/cc/resources/video_resource_u...
File cc/resources/video_resource_updater.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/16136005/diff/1/cc/resources/video_resource_u...
cc/resources/video_resource_updater.cc:368: if (!updater.get()) {
Have you considered adding an operator bool() to replace the operator T*(), as
our other smart pointers have? Then call sites like this would not need to
change.

[akalin, 2013-06-04 15:45:09]

https://codereview.chromium.org/16136005/diff/1/cc/resources/video_resource_u...
File cc/resources/video_resource_updater.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/16136005/diff/1/cc/resources/video_resource_u...
cc/resources/video_resource_updater.cc:368: if (!updater.get()) {
On 2013/06/04 14:01:14, danakj wrote:
> Have you considered adding an operator bool() to replace the operator T*(), as
> our other smart pointers have? Then call sites like this would not need to
> change.

Yes, that will be done in a future CL, and a second automated pass will be done
to convert weak_ptr.get() to weak_ptr in boolean contexts.

[danakj, 2013-06-04 17:04:51]

https://codereview.chromium.org/16136005/diff/1/cc/resources/video_resource_u...
File cc/resources/video_resource_updater.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/16136005/diff/1/cc/resources/video_resource_u...
cc/resources/video_resource_updater.cc:368: if (!updater.get()) {
On 2013/06/04 15:45:15, akalin wrote:
> On 2013/06/04 14:01:14, danakj wrote:
> > Have you considered adding an operator bool() to replace the operator T*(),
as
> > our other smart pointers have? Then call sites like this would not need to
> > change.
> 
> Yes, that will be done in a future CL, and a second automated pass will be
done
> to convert weak_ptr.get() to weak_ptr in boolean contexts.

Great, thanks!

[darin (slow to review), 2013-06-04 17:26:56]

LGTM