vmiklos added a comment. Kirill: OK, so you're in the camp marked as b) by Manuel. Sure, the vim integration is nice (I'm also a vim user), now that you mentioned it, I need to go and try it myself. ;-) Given the above patch, probably it's obvious that I'm more in camp a). I don't insist on having that in a tool named `clang-rename`, though.
Hmm, so here is the summary of the comments so far, as far as I understand: - Manuel: it's OK to handle multiple renames with a single command-line invocation, but not sure if clang-rename should do that, or if it should be a separate tool - Benjamin: no problem with clang-rename having this feature - Kirill: clang-rename should definitely not have this feature. What's the consensus, should I rework this patch, so that it doesn't touch `tool/ClangRename.cpp`, but adds a new tool (named e.g. `clang-multi-rename`, still linking to `clangRename`)? I can do that, but it would be good to hear first if it is worth the effort, or there would be still "the patch is correct, but it's not the way to go" style comments. :-) Thanks. http://reviews.llvm.org/D21814 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
