On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Gregory Szorc <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/20/12 4:37 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>
>> I'm fine with removing the comment AST traversal routines. The XML is far
>> better for clients.
>>
> XML is arguably a decent interchange format. But, I'd much prefer a more
> native and low-level API like we have today. I think it's terrific that
> comment XML is available. But, I think it is silly to force the incurred the
> cost for serialization and deserialization just to pass data through
> libclang.
>
> If you want to refactor the comment API so it isn't traversal based, I say
> go for it. But please don't force libclang consumers to use XML.
What should happen to these APIs when the comment AST on the C++ side
of Clang changes?
Dmitri
--
main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
(j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>*/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
