Same reason that people use perl for heavy text processing, R for scientific programming, python for rapid iteration. It’s what they’re built for. When something is built for a very focused specific problem domain, the problems in that domain can be expressed very concisely and naturally.
In the current python test there’s 4-6 lines of Python boilerplate for every 2-3 lines of test “meat”. And it’s all code, making matters even worse. A FileCheck test will have approximately 0 lines of text that aren’t part of the “meat” of the test, and on top of that it can poke at every low level detail of a system, not just those that are blessed with an api On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:29 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > jingham requested changes to this revision. > jingham added a comment. > This revision now requires changes to proceed. > > You do care about the common match string. When the lldb driver handles > completion, if the common match string is not null, we append that to the > line at the cursor position, then present the matches if there is more than > one. So the common match string also has to be tested. > > The ability to page the completion requests in the API would be useful for > instance in symbol completion where you can get lots of matches, but if you > only plan to display the first page you'd rather not pay the cost to go > find them all. I put that in the SB API's because I didn't want to have to > add another one when I got around to implementing this. When I get around > to this I'll fix the docs... But you could remove that from the lldb > private version if you're so motivated. I'll still remember I intended to > extend it this way, even if nobody else will see that. > > We can't return a std::pair across the SB API's, but we could make the > common match be another parameter. There was some reason this seemed > logical to me at the time, but I must admit I can't remember why now. It > is in practice easy to use, however. You append element 0 to the cursor > position, then print the rest of the completions if num_matches is > 1. > Again, feel free to switch the lldb_private API if it bugs you. > > An additional test in the Python testsuite is: > > def test_target_create_dash_co(self): > """Test that 'target create --co' completes to 'target variable > --core '.""" > self.complete_from_to('target create --co', 'target create --core ') > > So I still don't see why the file check method is preferable. But to each > his own, I guess. > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048 > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits