JDevlieghere added a comment. In D65122#1602025 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65122#1602025>, @xiaobai wrote:
> After going through this and modifying this patch, I can't help but wonder if > `llvm::Optional<TypeSystem &>` would be more appropriate. There are plenty of > instances where it's not a hard error if you can't get a TypeSystem and the > appropriate action is probably just to log and move on. I am conflicted > because I like how Expected forces you to be more rigorous with error > handling but I can't help but feel it is the wrong abstraction. Thoughts? I think an `Optional` would be fine. We can always create an `Error` when necessary, with the trade-off of being a little less precision about the root cause, which honestly doesn't seem that informative anyway. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65122/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65122 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
