gamesh411 wrote: > > The flag approach can probably make a sense for namespace handling (match > > the exact specified namespace, or allow a prefix before, or even something > > in between). > > Even in that case, I'd prefer a separate second parameter (that's either > boolean or a different `enum`). Squeezing unrelated things into the same flag > only makes sense if (1) memory use is strongly limited (2) there would be too > many separate parameters.
I lean towards the separate enum for the namespace handling scenario even if it means adding another enum to the constructor, or maybe packing the two enums into a configuration object because these are separate concerns. I left a suggestion inline as well, but otherwise, LGTM. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83432 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
