[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D27632: Add Formatv() versions of all our printf style formatting functions

2016-12-10 Thread Pavel Labath via Phabricator via lldb-commits
labath added a comment. This looks like a step in the right direction. I trust you won't go on a reformatting spree of the log messages until we settle on the syntax there. ;) Comment at: include/lldb/Core/ModuleSpec.h:244 + strm.Format("object_mod_time = {0:x+}",

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D27632: Add Formatv() versions of all our printf style formatting functions

2016-12-10 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
I would say format provider should be the default way to add formatting for a commonly formatted type. Member function syntax is used to implement adaptors that allow you to override formatting behavior of a type that already has a provider. One nice thing about F and D would be this: formatv("Di

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D27632: Add Formatv() versions of all our printf style formatting functions

2016-12-10 Thread Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
To elaborate about member function vs format provider, decoupling types from the way they're formatted seems like a good design practice in general. For example, you might want to add support for formatting a class which you don't have the code to. Sure, you can do it one way whenever possible an