I implemented it in cpp11-migrate at first but then thought it would be a better fit next to hasInlineBody(), so it would mimic FunctionDecl::hasBody()/getBody(). It feels strange to me to have hasInlineBody() without its getter counterpart. But no problem for me to put it back in cpp11-migrate.
I tried to find a case where it's risky to insert the override but I couldn't find one (e.g: a specialization dropping 'virtual' is not matched). Do you have one in mind? Richard Smith <[email protected]> writes: > I'm not convinced this is the right approach: getInlineBody has weird > semantics and thus it doesn't seem like a good fit as a general > purpose AST interface. It would make a lot more sense to me to have > the fallback to the template in the cpp11-migrate code, where it can > also handle other consequences of this, such as classifying such a fix > as "risky" (because it might not be correct for every instantiation). > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Guillaume Papin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Uh, embarrassing, of course I failed the attachments: > > > > -- > Guillaume Papin > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > > -- Guillaume Papin _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
