https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32986
Bug ID: 32986
Summary: Incorrect ROR_C implementation.
Product: lldb
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Prior
Cool. This is just the rename portion, right?
Sorry I didn't respond to your last message too.
I suppose, but I'm not sure ErrorAnd captures the intended meaning very
> well. In any case, that's not super important at this stage since this
> isn't on the immediate horizon.
Do you just mean tha
Yes, this is just the rename.
Regarding the naming, if you call it ErrorAnd, or WithError, or anything
that includes the word error, you are implying that something actually went
wrong. I don't think that's the intended use case, or at least not what I
have in mind (and from previous conversation
> On May 10, 2017, at 6:28 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
> Yes, this is just the rename.
>
> Regarding the naming, if you call it ErrorAnd, or WithError, or anything that
> includes the word error, you are implying that something actually went wrong.
> I don't think that's the intended use cas
Leaving 'Status' aside for now (the rename makes perfect sense), I'm basing
my ErrorAnd / WithError naming suggestion on this comment:
Is there any chance of introducing something like make_status() into
> llvm/Error.h, that constructs the llvm::Error in such a way that it still
> interoperates ni
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:33 PM Lang Hames wrote:
> Leaving 'Status' aside for now (the rename makes perfect sense), I'm
> basing my ErrorAnd / WithError naming suggestion on this comment:
>
> Is there any chance of introducing something like make_status() into
>> llvm/Error.h, that constructs th
