| Summary: | factor IScanner.addDefinition(IMacro) into its own interface | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Tools] CDT | Reporter: | Mike Kucera <mikekucera> | ||||
| Component: | cdt-core | Assignee: | Chris Recoskie <recoskie> | ||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | cdt-core-inbox, cdtdoug | ||||
| Version: | 4.0 | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | 4.0 RC0 | ||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Bug Depends on: | |||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 173110 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Mike Kucera
Created attachment 62252 [details]
proposed patch
Proposed patch.
I would like to apply this. I suggest a more descriptive name for the callback though. ICodeReaderFactoryCallback doesn't really tell me what the thing is actually doing. I would suggest calling the interface IMacroCollector instead. Sound ok? I have no objections. I would like to suggest that IScanner and the new base interface be declared "provisional" API to make it clear that clients take a risk in relying on it (http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Provisional_API_Guidelines). Actually, I think this is kind of an API for ISVs rather than public API. Eclipse has no standardized means to differentiate between those, though. FIXED on HEAD. All suggested changes have been made. |