On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Sean Silva <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes. It was in reply to a statement that seemed to suggest a "design > public API up front, then implement the whole thing" approach (not a > "incrementally approach our use cases, carefully considering the design of > the API at each step" approach). It seems like the "design API up front" > approach is the exception rather than the norm in LLVM-land, so it was > strange to see it being suggested as a preference. Sorry, I wasn't trying to preclude an incremental approach here. I'm saying design the API that you are adding, as you add it. That doesn't have to be the *entire* API or the final version of the API. Each increment should be designed with some care and thought behind it. The proposed patch is specifically not doing *any* design of the API or finding small increments at which the design makes sense.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
