> On Mar 30, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Tamas Berghammer via lldb-commits > <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > So in general if we get some actual advantage from moving the code (e.g. > cleaner API, better testing options, etc...) then I have no issue around it > but if the only gain is the file size reduction and the removal of the cyclic > dependencies then I think this causes more problem then the benefit of the > change (same reason why we don't run clang-format over the full code base). > > In this concrete case I don't see the benefit neither in the API nor for > testing as all functions were accessible before in the same way and the tests > can call the functions from the ClangASTContext instead of the ClangUtils > with the same functionality.
+1 to this I have seen this kind of pattern (splitting the semantics of a class across multiple implementation files) in other languages (e.g. I remember seeing some C# code using it), but I don’t see much of an advantage to it in C++ Actually, in this case it looks like the multiple implementation files all need to #include some common headers, so what you end up with is even more code being compiled, which negates any advantage of having smaller on-disk files. Thanks, - Enrico 📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
