beanz added a comment. I get your perspective, but holding up this relatively small patch that fixes a bug in existing code on an architectural disagreement seems like excessive bike shedding. If we assume that JSON is required for the use case would you have Kuba write a full JSON parser in LLVM to satisfy your distaste over the fact that we have multiple JSON parsers already? That seems like an unreasonable request just to fix a few small bugs in existing code.
Fundamentally I think we probably should migrate toward having a single JSON parser implemented in LLVMSupport, but I don't think this is the patch review to pick that fight over. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34322 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
