jansvoboda11 wrote: > Thanks for iterating! I find the current implementation much clearer.
Thanks for your patience! > The only thing I might quibble about is the "child" vs. "parent" terminology > you changed: I think it's fairly ambiguous either way, because the node is > the "child" from the perspective of a top-down include hierarchy, but it's > the "parent" from the perspective of the bottom-up search. You could maybe > change it to IncludedFile or something, but I don't feel very strongly about > it. Child is no worse than parent so if you prefer child I don't think you > need to change it. I understand. My problem with using "parent" here is that we're using "parent" just a couple lines above to describe the opposite relationship: ``` // - one loc is a parent of the other (we consider the parent as "first") ``` So I believe framing all the relationships in terms of the top-down include/expansion hierarchy makes more sense than mixing them up with the bottom-up tree walk. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66962 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
