Re: [PATCH 10/15] Class regcache_readonly

[Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>]

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)