JDevlieghere wrote: > I do have my doubts about embedding the command string into the return > object, but it sounds like the thought had occurred to at least two of you > independently, so if you all think that's the best direction, then I guess > I'm outvoted.
I don't feel strongly about storing the command in the `CommandReturnObject`. It seemed like the natural place to put it and it wouldn't *pollute* the callback signature. I have nothing against passing in the command but I'd be worried that there might be other things needed in the future and I really don't want to have two callbacks. We could solve it by passing in an object but that needs to be bridged through the SB API which seems overkill for what I'm trying to do today. Anyway, let's continue the discussion in #125132. We just branched for the 20.x release so we have plenty of time to refine the callback API if needed. If anyone (else) sees this and thinks about adopting it, this is your warning that it might change :-). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125006 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
