mgorny added a comment. In D100418#2689348 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100418#2689348>, @labath wrote:
> I've been thinking about whether this should be done here, or via a separate > multiplexer entity. It's not clear to me which one is cleaner so I suppose we > can go with what you have done here. > > That said, I'm not too happy about this callback_id business. IIUC, it's only > there to enable removing a specific callback (because you can't have a set of > std::functions). But there are other ways to achieve that, and they don't > leak this detail to the users. One option would be to hold the callbacks in a > std::list, and use the (stable) iterator as the ID.... > > It could also use a test... something like, register a callback, fire a > signal and check it's called, registers a second callback and check that both > are called, unregister the first one and check that only the second one is > called, ... Hmm, my first though was to use a `static int` that increases with every call. But the `std::list` idea is interesting, so I'll explore that. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100418/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100418 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
