labath added a comment.
I haven't looked at the patch in detail, but I have one high-level question. It
seems to be that instead of subclassing a fully-functional File class, it would
be better to create an abstract class, that both `File` and the new python
thingy could implement. That would also create a natural place to write down
the FILE* conversion semantics and other stuff we talked about at lldb-dev. I
don't have any opinion as to whether the name `File` should denote the new
abstract class, or the real thing, but it should most likely be done as a
separate patch.
What do you think about that?
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/API/SBFile.h:16-21
+/* These tags make no difference at the c++ level, but
+ * when the constructors are called from python they control
+ * how python files are converted by SWIG into FileSP */
+struct FileBorrow {};
+struct FileForceScriptingIO {};
+struct FileBorrowAndForceScriptingIO {};
----------------
I don't think we have anything similar to this in any of our SB classes. It
might be better to avoid it. Could the same thing be achieved e.g. with a
static factory function (`static SBFile SBFile::Create(FileSP file_sp, bool
borrow, bool force_scripting_io)`) ?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68188/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68188
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
