While this change is OK w/ me (given the discusion on the issue linked) I have to wonder:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 4:23 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > Rename Diagnostic to DiagnosticsEngine as per issue 5397 Is that really the best naming convention? There is in fact only one DiagnosticsEngine instance per diagnostic message. All the per-message state is stored in it. Essentially, this name doesn't really compute for me. Previously we had: Diagnostic -- stored the state of a particular diagnostic, as well as a ton of other cruft. DiagnosticInfo -- wrapper around a single Diagnostic object, most of the methods just forward Now we have: DiagnosticsEngine Diagnostic I feel like we should have split Diagnostic into two classes, one the "engine" part, the other the state for a particular diagnostic. We could call the latter "DiagnosticImpl" or something else to clarify that its just the inner storage for a Diagnostic object (in the new nomenclature). Maybe there are other ideas for better names / designs?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
