On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:24 PM, DeadMG <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It'd be one thing to not expose the implementation details if there was a >> public API ready to go that offered the needed functionality; but there >> isn't. Exposing your implementation for re-use with well-known consequences >> is better than other people not being able to re-use it at all. > > > I don't think this line of logic holds. > > > I'm really not sure why the first step isn't to *design* a reasonable > public API. Throwing header files at the wall and seeing what sticks will > not result in an API we can maintain and support going forward. > Does any part of LLVM actually *design* a public API (besides the C stuff), rather than having the public API be just the one used by clients within LLVM? Actually, I feel like there would be pushback for trying to do that. -- Sean Silva > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
