rsmith added inline comments. ================ Comment at: docs/ClassScope.rst:2 @@ +1,3 @@ +=========== +Class Scope +=========== ---------------- pcc wrote: > rsmith wrote: > > Can you use some word other than "scope" here? "Class scope" is already a > > term of art in C++, meaning something completely different. I think what > > you're referring to is exactly the visibility of the class (in the ELF > > sense). > Yes, this is pretty much visibility. I wanted to avoid using the term > "visibility" because I'm introducing flags and attributes which can make > scope mean something different to object file visibility, so I wanted to > avoid the overload to avoid confusion. > > Maybe the overloading would help with understanding though if I add a > qualifying adjective. This is all about whether all derived classes are > visible, so maybe the right term is something like "derived visibility"? We already have attributes that can set the visibility of a class (which in turn affects the visibility of the vtable etc.) In what way is that different from what you're proposing? Is this a valuable difference, given the complexity of having two similar-but-different ways of describing the cross-DSO visibility of a class?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18635 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
