labath wrote: > Given that most of these files start with 1st ValueObject` I felt like that > was the better name for the library, rather than DIL which doesn't exist yet. > I'm fine with putting the DIL implementation in the new ValueObject library > (potentially in a DIL subdirectory) or keep it in Core like you suggested.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the directory should be called DIL -- that would again be too DIL-specific (and vapourware). I was more thinking of a name which was generic enough so it encompasses both. I don't really have a good suggestion, except maybe "Value" (so that you have a *Value*Object and and E-value-ator for it sitting next to each other. That said, now that I've written this, I am starting to think that I'd be fine with an "evaluator" in a directory called "valueobject" as well, so I'm going to stamp this. If you think that "Value" is better, then feel free to rename it to that. Otherwise, this is fine as well. (I've also checked that this builds on linux with the stricter dep checking) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113393 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
