Replace base::NullableString16(bool) usage with default constructor.

Replace base::NullableString16(bool) usage with default constructor.

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=206922

[michaeln, 2013-06-17 23:48:12]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/17327004/diff/1/base/strings/nullable_string16.h
File base/strings/nullable_string16.h (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/17327004/diff/1/base/strings/nullable_string1...
base/strings/nullable_string16.h:21: explicit NullableString16(bool is_null) :
is_null_(is_null) { }
i guess we never construct the oddball non-null empty value?

[darin (slow to review), 2013-06-17 23:52:43]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM, <michaeln@chromium.org> wrote:

> lgtm
>
>
> https://codereview.chromium.**org/17327004/diff/1/base/**
>
strings/nullable_string16.h<https://codereview.chromium.org/17327004/diff/1/base/strings/nullable_string16.h>
> File base/strings/nullable_**string16.h (left):
>
> https://codereview.chromium.**org/17327004/diff/1/base/**
>
strings/nullable_string16.h#**oldcode21<https://codereview.chromium.org/17327004/diff/1/base/strings/nullable_string16.h#oldcode21>
> base/strings/nullable_**string16.h:21: explicit NullableString16(bool
> is_null) : is_null_(is_null) { }
> i guess we never construct the oddball non-null empty value?
>

Yup, that's right!

I was also considering dropping the bool from the other constructor since
most call-sites just pass false.  There are however some cases where we
wish to construct a NullableString16 from a serialized format.  I could add
a branch in that case.  I decided to keep this CL simple.

-Darin


>
>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/17327004/<https://codereview.chromium.org/1...
>

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-17 23:53:29]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/darin@chromium.org/17327004/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-18 08:30:53]

Change committed as 206922