aprantl added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D48295#1137595, @apolyakov wrote:
> Changed method's name from `ReturnMIStatus` to `HandleSBError`. Also added
> one more use case(see -exec-step's Execute function).
>
> The only thing that worries me is that if we want to specify handler for
> error case, we should do something like:
>
> SBError error = ...
> auto errorHandler = ...
>
> return HandleSBError(error, [] { return MIstatus::success; }, errorHandler);
>
>
> since in C++ we can't skip first optional argument and only pass second one.
Does it ever make sense to return something different than `MIstatus::failure`
from the failure handler? Since HandleSBError sets the Error string, probably
not. So we could change the error handler to a `const std::function<void()>`.
Then you can define the following overloads:
bool CMICmdBase::HandleSBError(lldb::SBError error, const
std::function<bool()> successHandler = [] { return MIstatus::success; }, const
std::function<void()> errorHandler = [] { return MIstatus::failure; });
bool CMICmdBase::HandleSBError(lldb::SBError error, const
std::function<void()> errorHandler);
// this one is for the second half of Execute()
bool CMICmdBase::HandleMIstatus(bool status, const std::function<void()>
errorHandler = [] { return MIstatus::success; });
By the way, I don't think it makes sense to pass any of the arguments by
reference. Both SBError and std::function should be very cheap to pass by value.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48295
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
