This patch is *pure evil* since it subtly changes the meaning of existing code. It's better to just come up with completely new names so that existing code, instead of silently misbehaving, will instead fail to compile.
I think that isA is clearer for the non-strict base-of/derived-from anyway: much less error prone. I think it would be good to have a patch that just renames isBaseOf to isA. In a later patch, you can then introduce a matcher for strict base-of/derived-from notion. --Sean Silva On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Sebastian Redl <[email protected]> wrote: > > While I agree that this is more intuitive, we have precedent: > std::is_base_of<X, X> is true, even though a class is no more a base of > itself than derived from itself. > > http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D37 > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
