cassanova added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/tools/lldb-fuzzer/lldb-commandinterpreter-fuzzer/lldb-commandinterpreter-fuzzer.cpp:39 + SBCommandReturnObject ro = SBCommandReturnObject(); + SBCommandInterpreter thisinterpreter = debugger.GetCommandInterpreter(); + ---------------- mib wrote: > cassanova wrote: > > mib wrote: > > > mib wrote: > > > > Nit: the variable naming does really follow the lldb's style. > > > doesn't * > > Oh shoot, I didn't notice. Would `interpreter` or `ci` be a better variable > > name? > I was more annoyed by the fact that the variable started with `this`. It's a > reserved keyword in C++ and that can it make error prone. However, `ci` is a > great candidate for this :) Ah, good point about that. I renamed it to `ci`. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128292/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128292 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
