[PATCH] D27836: Store the "current position" index within the ASTRecordReader.
dlj added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27836#628029, @rsmith wrote: > LGTM, any chance I can tempt you to lowerCamelCase all the other > ASTRecordReader members to match the new ones as a follow-up change? Yup, will do. https://reviews.llvm.org/D27836 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D27836: Store the "current position" index within the ASTRecordReader.
rsmith accepted this revision. rsmith added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM, any chance I can tempt you to lowerCamelCase all the other ASTRecordReader members to match the new ones as a follow-up change? https://reviews.llvm.org/D27836 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D27836: Store the "current position" index within the ASTRecordReader.
dlj added a comment. Yeah, that makes more sense. Switched to readInt/peekInt/skipInts, let me know if you have a better idea for the names. https://reviews.llvm.org/D27836 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[PATCH] D27836: Store the "current position" index within the ASTRecordReader.
rsmith added a comment. I like moving `Idx` into the reader, but I have mixed feelings about the iterator-like interface. For consistency with the rest of the `ASTRecordReader` interface, and with how we model the writer side, I think perhaps `Record.ReadInt()` would fit better than using `*Record++`. https://reviews.llvm.org/D27836 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
