labath added a comment. In D68546#1700273 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68546#1700273>, @lawrence_danna wrote:
> So what's the conclusion here? Should `HandleProcessEvent` get a SBStream > variant as well? I say "as well", because the `FileSP` variant is > required in order to remove the python binding to the `FILE*` variant, and > once we have the `FileSP` it seems like it would be really strange to leave > out the `SBFile`. Well... if we agree that SBStream is the future for APIs like this, then I don't think that would be too strange. The FileSP and FILE* variants would both be "legacy/deprecated" and present only to support legacy c++/python uses, and the SBStream would be the thing which we expect new users to use. That said, I don't think that having an SBFile-based API is that bad either (though I would still like if it is used via an SBStream internally).. The main advantage of the "higher level" stream interface I see is that it is easier to provide your own implementation of it (less methods to override). However, given that we've just went through the exercise of making the file API overridable externally, I don't think we'll want to create an overridable stream abstraction any time soon. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68546/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68546 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
