dlj added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27836#628029, @rsmith wrote:
> LGTM, any chance I can tempt you to lowerCamelCase all the other
> ASTRecordReader members to match the new ones as a follow-up change?
Yup, will do.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27836
__
rsmith accepted this revision.
rsmith added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM, any chance I can tempt you to lowerCamelCase all the other
ASTRecordReader members to match the new ones as a follow-up change?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27836
__
dlj added a comment.
Yeah, that makes more sense. Switched to readInt/peekInt/skipInts, let me know
if you have a better idea for the names.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27836
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.o
rsmith added a comment.
I like moving `Idx` into the reader, but I have mixed feelings about the
iterator-like interface. For consistency with the rest of the `ASTRecordReader`
interface, and with how we model the writer side, I think perhaps
`Record.ReadInt()` would fit better than using `*Rec
