On Aug 16, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Author: akirtzidis
> Date: Fri Aug 16 13:17:55 2013
> New Revision: 188569
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=188569&view=rev
> Log:
> Introduce the clangIDE library.
>
> Libclang has a lot of functionality that is inaccessible.
> The purpose of clangIDE is to move most of the functionality of libclang to
> it so we
> can expose it and have libclang be more of a thin C wrapper over clangIDE.
>
> Start by moving the USR generation functionality into clangIDE.
>
> I really like the general direction here, but I think it would have been nice
> to send an email to the dev list with the plan, and discuss some of the high
> level issues first.
>
> For example, I strongly object to the name 'IDE'. This isn't an Integrated
> Development Environment, it is a library. I have a strong suspicion that we
> don't even want a *single* library for all of the functionality being pulled
> out of libclang, and instead a small collection of them based on the specific
> functionality provided. This is similar to how we split up the Tooling
> library (for integrating tools with the driver and frontend functionality)
> and the AST Matchers library. We also already have the beginnings of this
> with the Index library and the Edit library.
>
> I'm not trying to claim what the right name is, but I don't think it is IDE.
> I think what would help to figure out the right name is to look at the end
> set of functionality (at a high level) that is being abstracted out of
> libclang.
I don't have any strong preference, we could have libIndex and
libCodeCompletion, which are the major pieces of libclang.
-Argyrios
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
