lawrence_danna added a comment.
In D68188#1687532 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68188#1687532>, @labath wrote:
> It seems to be that instead of subclassing a fully-functional File class, it
> would be better to create an abstract class, that both `File` and the new
> python thingy could implement. That would also create a natural place to
> write down the FILE* conversion semantics and other stuff we talked about at
> lldb-dev. I don't have any opinion as to whether the name `File` should
> denote the new abstract class, or the real thing, but it should most likely
> be done as a separate patch.
>
> What do you think about that?
I could do it that way, but I have some reservations about it. In this
version the class hierarchy looks like this:
File
|
SimplePythonFile --------+
| |
TextPythonFile BinaryPythonFile
If we added an abstract base class, I guess it would look like this:
AbstractFile
| |
File PythonFile
| | | |
SimplePythonFile | |
| |
+ -----------------------+ |
| |
TextPythonFile BinaryPythonFile
Does a more complicated class hierarchy like that really solve a problem or
make the code easier to understand?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68188/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D68188
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
