arphaman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36969#847803, @vsk wrote:
> Would it be more convenient to extend ErrorInfo instead of creating a new
> diagnostic wrapper? E.g one benefit of passing around Expected<T>'s is that
> there's some assurance the diagnostics will be reported.
Possibly, but one issue I found with ErrorInfo is that it gets harder to report
diagnostics. E.g. with `DiagnosticOr` you will be able to write:
DiagnosticOr<...> function(RefactoringOperation &Op) {
return Op.Diag(Loc, err::something) << "invalid";
}
But with `Expected` you'll have to use something like:
Expected<...> function(RefactoringOperation &Op) {
return llvm::make_error<DiagnosticError>(Op.Diag(Loc, err::something) <<
"invalid");
}
I don't think that the assurance about reporting these diagnostics is that
important for my case. They will be consumed at most in 3 places
(clang-refactor, clangd, and libclang) and clangd and it will obvious to the
user if errors aren't getting reported.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36969
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
