omtcyfz added a comment. Bringing results of an offline discussion with Eric (@ioeric) live.
Eric's point was that this patch should only care about `clang-refactor` and introduce changes directly related to creating `clang-rename`. `clang-rename` and all other tools migration can be done later, which is also good in terms of this patch not growing too large. Another point was that it should be easier if there would be a class, from which refactoring tools would derive and use it as an interface. Advantages are as follows: - It would be easier to implement multi-TU support as the tools wouldn't simply care about that part while delegating the "hard work" to the common part. - It would be easier to implement new tools, because there will be a slightly simpler interface. - It would be easier to setup unit tests and other routine, because right now all tools have to implement basic routine for unit tests, for example, which is just copied from the other tools' unit tests with slight changes. Delegating that to the common interface is also nice. The current diff isn't final, but I wanted to bring it to the reviews, because it gives an overview of what I am doing and if there are any high-level comments to address it's better to get them sooner than later. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24192 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
