https://github.com/labath commented:
Apart from the pointer indexing question, this PR also opens the question of "how should the numbers be represented". Here you represent them as ValueObjects, which means you have to give them types, which means you have to find a type system for them, ... I'm not sure I agree with how are those steps implemented (in fact, I'm pretty sure I don't agree with at least some of those steps). In order to keep this PR focused, and because a first-class number representation is not necessary for replacing the current "frame var", my suggestion would be to dumb down the implementation of `postfix_expression`: Instead of `postfix_expression "[" expression "]"`, you could implement something like `postfix_expression "[" integer "]"`. Then we can store the RHS of the `[]` expression directly as a (u)int64 (or AP(S)Int, or whatever), and we can completely sidestep the question its type. My reason for that is that I believe that after this is implemented (and @cmtice finishes member access), we will be in a position to flip the flag on this and make it the default -- which I think is the real proof of the pudding, and I sort of expect we will need to tweak the implementation until everything settles into place. I think it's better to not introduce additional complexity while we're doing that. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138551 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
