On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jakob Leben <[email protected]> wrote:
> SBValue should offer as children *anything* that is offered by *any* STL > container as its elements, and furthermore that this becomes a de-facto > simple and elegant definition of SBValue semantics with regard to children > and with regard to STL containers. After all, it would actually make a lot of sense to me to have a separate API (C++ class) for "synthetic" (better named "formatted") observation of complex data structures, as opposed to having a single boolean flag in SBValue control such a drastic distinction between SBValue API semantics with regard to the concept of "children".
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
