mikhail.ramalho added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48561#1146114, @george.karpenkov wrote:
> After thinking about this change a bit longer, I think it does not make sense. > > Albeit poorly named, the previous design had a purpose: > `RangedConstraintManager` is a public interface, and `RangeConstraintManager` > is a private implementation. > Exposing both in the header does not make sense. > > For exposing the factory could you just move the factory and it's getter? > Another solution is just merging the two classes entirely, but that's more > heavyweight, and would force exposing private functions in a header (but > those could be just moved to static C functions). > @NoQ further comments? Since we decided to go with the other approach in https://reviews.llvm.org/D48565, we don't actually need this patch anymore. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D48561 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
