tfiala added a comment. Making changes to the text...
================ Comment at: SB-api-coding-rules.html:51-54 + An example of this is the SBValue class. Please note it is necessary for the Impl class to + not be a class embedded in the SB class, but rather should be a separate class that is not + present in the public lldb namespace. Failure to do so leads to leakage of weak-linked symbols + in the SBAPI. ---------------- jingham wrote: > I think it's more straightforward to say: > > Please note that you should not put this Impl class in the lldb namespace. > Failure to do so... > > After all, it would be equally bad to have put it inside the "namespace lldb" > but not in the class. > Okay, I can use your verbiage. The end of one sentence did explicitly call out having it not be in the public lldb namespace: "...but rather should be a separate class that is not present in the public lldb namespace." but I think your prose is clearer, though. Thank you! https://reviews.llvm.org/D26470 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
