zturner added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18530#387382, @clayborg wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18530#387377, @zturner wrote: > > > So, in thinking about this some more, my end goal does not necessarily > > involve the creation of a new file. The primary goal is group related > > functions together into a more bite-sized interface in order to make it > > easier to understand the code. > > > > How about keeping everything in the same file, but still splitting these > > functions out into another class defined in that file? For example, the > > `ClangUtil` class could still be in `ClangASTContext.h`. I think that > > eliminates the concern about merging, and while it doesn't address the > > issue of the massive file (which I still think is an important > > consideration for the long term health of this code), it at least makes > > some progress in that it groups everything together so that it makes the > > interface more easily digestible, and makes a move to another file easier > > in the future if someone wanted to do it. > > > That still doesn't help downstream merging. I thought you said the issue was if you try to merge to a branch that didn't have the `ClangUtil.cpp` file. If you just copy and paste a function from one location in a file to another location and change the class it belongs to, that's still a problem? That's a mighty big burden for upstream developers to have to deal with. http://reviews.llvm.org/D18530 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
