unnar added a comment. In D74759#1895748 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74759#1895748>, @labath wrote:
> In D74759#1893485 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74759#1893485>, @unnar wrote: > > > That should work...although I'm not sure how that is any different to the > > range or data being public. If a user modifies anything then it has > > essentially invalidated the whole structure anyway. > > > That is a fair point. I suppose the reason why I see this as different is > because this field is an implementation detail of the RangeDataVector class, > and so the user should not even see it -- whereas the user has a legitimate > reason to at least access the other fields (and most of the methods only > provide read-only access to these fields). > > I'm sorry, I haven't gotten around to looking at this patch today, but I > thought I'd at least say that... That is true. I am fine with changing it if that's the only thing that you see as blocking this change from passing. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74759/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74759 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
