statham-arm wrote: > my only concern is to make sure we don't unintentionally make it harder to > integrate potential future extensions such as the mutually dependent groups.
Hmmm. So if you had both ME and MD groups, you might also need a _group_ to be able to be a member of another group? That way you could specify hierarchies such as "must have all of: A, B, and exactly one of C,D" (a MD group one of whose members is a ME group), or "must have at most one of: (all of A,B,C) or (all of U,V,W)" (a ME group containing MD groups). I suppose that makes sense, and the only change it needs to your structure is that maybe later a group record might also need to have a `Group:` or `Parent:` header. But there's no need to put that part in now, only to make sure there's room to add it in future if needed. Would you accept `Type: Exclusive` instead of `Exclusive: True`? It seems more plausible to me that there might be three kinds of group that _can't_ go together than three group-type flags that you can have in any combination. > although that may not necessarily be a bad thing since you could also warn if > someone accidentally tries to use a group that wasn't previously defined > (e.g. when making a typo). That is true. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69447 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
