rjmccall added a comment.
My skepticism about the raw_ostream is not about the design of having a custom
raw_ostream subclass, it's that that subclass could conceivably be re-used by
some other client. It feels like it belongs as an internal hack in Clang
absent some real evidence that someone else would use it.
================
Comment at: lib/AST/TypePrinter.cpp:1532-1534
+namespace {
+template<typename TA>
+void printTo(raw_ostream &OS, ArrayRef<TA> Args, const PrintingPolicy &Policy,
----------------
sepavloff wrote:
> rnk wrote:
> > `static` is nicer than a short anonymous namespace.
> Yes, but this is function template. It won't create symbol in object file.
> Actually anonymous namespace has no effect here, it is only a documentation
> hint.
Nonetheless, we generally prefer to use 'static' on internal functions, even
function templates, instead of putting them in anonymous namespaces.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40508
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
