[cfe-commits] Checker and respondsToCallback

[Ted Kremenek]

While I'm a huge advocate for information-hiding and clean APIs, the purpose of this flag is to implement an optimization in GRExprEngine, so this is really a tightly coupled dance between GRExprEngine and the Checker objects.  Note that GRExprEngine is already a 'friend' of the Checker class.  There's no need for an accessor at all if we basically want it to be a hidden detail between Checker and GRExprEngine.  It then doesn't pollute the public interface of Checker.

On Aug 5, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Jordy Rose wrote:

> 
> I was adhering strictly to information-hiding -- once we're at this point,
> it's little better than just accessing respondsToCallback directly. But it
> is simpler. I think I went overboard.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 09:31:17 +0800, Zhongxing Xu <xuzhongxing at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Why can't we just do that:
>> 
>> in Checker.h:
>> 
>>  bool &getCallbackFlag() {
>>    return respondsToCallback;
>>  }
>> 
>> In GRExprEngine.cpp:
>> 
>> +    SaveAndRestore<bool> OldFlag(checker->getCallbackFlag(), true);
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20100805/e365d010/attachment.html>