On Aug 16, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> I think that's at least a much better starting point for the design. USRs
> make the most sense in a library dealing with indexing IMO.
>
> I don't know enough of libclang's internals to really effectively evaluate
> this, I was largely hoping to start the discussion. =]
Renamed to libIndex in r188601, thanks for the feedback!
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
