ymandel added a comment. In D82226#2116931 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82226#2116931>, @gribozavr2 wrote:
> In D82226#2115406 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82226#2115406>, @asoffer wrote: > > > I think the tradeoff here is > > Dynamic typing -- faster compile times, type safety checked at run-time > > (in tests), lower maintenance cost > > Templates -- Faster runtime, type safety checked at compile-time, better > > user expereience > > > For me, the more important part of the tradeoff is whether we will have one > type or multiple. If we use Any, then all `AtomicChange` regardless of what > produced them, will have the same type. If we use templates, then > `AtomicChange<T>` is a different type from `AtomicChange<U>`. So based on > that I think using Any is a better choice, since infrastructure code would > want to handle with `AtomicChange` objects and not have to be implemented as > a template over arbitrary metadata type. I'm convinced (both yours and Andy's arguments). Andy, please consider whether any of this belongs in comments. (I don't have much opinion). > Regarding the metadata itself, WDYT about using a map from string to any > instead of just one any? This way multiple layers of the system would be able > to attach metadata without interfering. Sounds good, but I'm fine either way. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82226/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82226 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
