Re: [PATCH 10/15] Class regcache_readonly

Yao Qi
2018-01-24T17:37:18Z

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Just pitching some ideas, I don't think I understand the situation as well as
> you do.
>
> I assume we want to keep the "regcache" type to mean read/write and attached,
> since that's the most common use case. Keeping this will reduce the amount of
> changes needed throughout the code base. We can then qualify the other types

Yes.

> based on how they differ from "read/write" and "attached". That would give us
> (in the same order as your list above):
>
> - readonly_detached_regcache
> - detached_regcache
> - regcache
> - readonly_regcache

This should be readonly_attached_regcache.

>
> This would give a predictable naming, and makes it maybe easier to know what
> to expect from each type. The graph you used in message 0/15 would become:
>
> reg_buffer
> ^
> |
> ------+-----
> ^
> |
> readable_regcache (abstract)
> ^
> |
> ------+------
> ^ ^
> | |
> detached_regcache readonly_detached_regcache
> ^
> |
> regcache
>

This naming is fine to me except for readonly_detached_regcache
as it is too long. As "readonly" implies "detached" in current context,
can we name it readonly_regcache?

--
Yao (齐尧)