[llvm-dev] Should we split llvm Support and ADT?

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On Jul 5, 2017, at 6:26 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> 
> You mentioned that a good line to draw is one where we're adding things that are *known* to be added to c++ future. How strictly do we want to enforce this? There are lots of things have equally broad utility, but aren't necessarily known to be added to c++ in the future.

In my opinion, this should be very strictly enforced.  We need a black and white test for “what goes where”.  The “already accepted into a future standard” metric satisfies that.

I’d even go so far as to say that stuff in StringRef that isn’t in string_view (e.g. the atoi stuff) should be split out (e.g. to StringExtras) before the move.

-Chris