aprantl added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48295#1136692, @apolyakov wrote:
> I don't completely understand what you mean. First of all, what do you mean > when talking about success_handlers? 'cause if you mean success_handler from > `Execute` function, then I should say that it doesn't have to set an error, > it might be any. Secondly, `status` in your example is a function, how can it > has a `takeError` method? `status` is meant to be a `bool`. I think `success_handler` was a bad name. It should probably be called `action` or `command` something similar. It would be the actual implementation of the command, such as lambda that is assigned to `success_handler` in your patch. https://reviews.llvm.org/D48295 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
