[PATCH] D18635: Rework interface for bitset-using features to use a notion of class scope.

[Richard Smith via cfe-commits]

rsmith added inline comments.

================
Comment at: docs/ClassScope.rst:2
@@ +1,3 @@
+===========
+Class Scope
+===========
----------------
pcc wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > Can you use some word other than "scope" here? "Class scope" is already a term of art in C++, meaning something completely different. I think what you're referring to is exactly the visibility of the class (in the ELF sense).
> Yes, this is pretty much visibility. I wanted to avoid using the term "visibility" because I'm introducing flags and attributes which can make scope mean something different to object file visibility, so I wanted to avoid the overload to avoid confusion.
> 
> Maybe the overloading would help with understanding though if I add a qualifying adjective. This is all about whether all derived classes are visible, so maybe the right term is something like "derived visibility"?
We already have attributes that can set the visibility of a class (which in turn affects the visibility of the vtable etc.) In what way is that different from what you're proposing? Is this a valuable difference, given the complexity of having two similar-but-different ways of describing the cross-DSO visibility of a class?


http://reviews.llvm.org/D18635