r261674 - Rename Action::begin() to Action::input_begin().

[Nico Weber via cfe-commits]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:55 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:44 PM, David Blaikie via cfe-commits <
>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Nico Weber via cfe-commits <
>>> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Author: nico
>>>> Date: Tue Feb 23 13:30:43 2016
>>>> New Revision: 261674
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=261674&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> Rename Action::begin() to Action::input_begin().
>>>>
>>>> Also introduce inputs() that reutnrs an llvm::iterator_range.
>>>> Iterating over A->inputs() is much less mysterious than
>>>> iterating over *A.  No intended behavior change.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like a strange change - is there ambiguity of what an Action is a
>>> collection of?
>>>
>>
>> Action isn't primarily a collection, but an action (a list of inputs, but
>> also a kind, an output type, etc) :-)
>>
>
> The analogy to llvm::Function, llvm::BasicBlock, etc, still seem somewhat
> apt (a Function isn't, in some sense, primarily a collection of basic
> blocks - it's a global value with a name and parameters, etc).
>
>
>> I found this code pretty confusing, hence I renamed it.
>>
>> (I do have a local change currently that gives it a second iterable
>> thing, but this seemed like a good change independent of my local change.)
>>
>
> Fair enough - just figured I'd point out there's a fair bit of precedent
> for thing-is-a-collection across LLVM, in case that provides a different
> perspective.
>

It's not very common in clang though, is it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20160223/905d2dbe/attachment.html>