On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > Actually, on reading this further, I think I misread how it works... DiagnosticsEngine stores the state for the currently-being-emitted diagnostic, and Diagnostic is just a thin wrapper around that currently-being-emitted diagnostic. Given that, this naming scheme seems less bad, if still a touch confusing...
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
