On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Anders Carlsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 20 okt 2009 kl. 08.42 skrev Daniel Dunbar: > >> Hi Anders, >> >> Shouldn't the mangle functions just be methods on the MangleContext? I >> think this simplifies things. >> > > Sure, that sounds like a good idea. > >> Once that is done it probably makes sense to make MangleContext an >> abstract class and have CXXNameMangler be its concrete implementation. > > In what way would MangleContext be abstract? Would we make the mangle > functions pure virtual? (That doesn't really make sense to me).
Well, currently the implementation of the mangler is hidden, so if we care to preserve that then it would be a abstract base class and implementation. I personally like hiding implementations, but its not particularly important in this case. - Daniel _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
