Jlalond wrote: > > None of the SB API methods return any STL types/containers, like the > > std::optionals returned in this PR. I worry if this will make the bridging > > to other languages more complicated, but it's never something I've thought > > about before. @jimingham @bulbazord @clayborg @JDevlieghere may have a more > > informed opinion on whether this is important or not. > > Yeah, we've been discussing introducing an `SBOptional` type at some point to > be easier to bridge it with python but we should refrain from using the STL > as return types / arguments for now. > > Besides that, I've also noticed that your classes are named `CoreDumpOption`. > On Apple platform, we call these "corefiles" so to be consistent accros > various platform, lets just drop the "Dump" part from the class / method > names and call it `CoreOption`
@clayborg actually mentioned this when I started work originally that we should avoid STL types. It seems I forgot while figuring out SWIG. As for `CoreOptions` vs `CoreDumpOptions`, the primary flavors I know of are Window's Kernel/Minidump and the ELF Coredumps. I think `CoreDumpOptions` is less ambiguous for that reason https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98403 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
