Michael137 wrote: > > Perhaps we could just represent a template parameter as an SBValue instead? > > I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean, even for type template template > parameters? How would that work? By creating an empty value of the given > type? And how would we pass the "kind" of the template parameter? I don't > think it makes sense adding it to the SBValue class.. > > The current implementation seems okay to me, but if we wanted to create > something fancier, then I think it'd be best to create a new SB class > (SBTypeTemplateParameter?)
Yea `SBTypeTemplateParameter` was more along the lines of what I was thinking, if we wanted to unify these APIs https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126901 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
