DavidSpickett wrote: > I also could use a switch instead of == if desired. That has the nicer > property that when refactors add enum variants you get an error/warning that > they aren't handled in all the switches, but not where you use ==.
I think I would prefer the switch. It will also make it clearer to people reading it that we intentionally ignore notification packets, rather than implying this from the members of the enum. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/204788 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
