On 06/11/2013 10:10, David Majnemer wrote: > From my experience, > `SkipUntil(EndKind, /*StopAtSemi=*/true, /*DontConsume=*/true);` > is more typical in clang than > `SkipUntil(EndKind, StopAtSemi | DontConsume);` > > It seems that some of the calls that you changed were previously nasty > (i.e. `SkipUntil(EndKind, true, true)`) which justifies a cleanup. > However I'm not sure we want a bitfield here. > > What is your justification?
I like this new SkipUnti(). It's a step in the right direction for the parser, and a lot more approachable than the rows of bools. The old comments-before-arguments trick was never kept up to date and too easy to mix up. Small nitpick, The names of DontConsume and NoSkipUntilFlags are a bit jarring (maybe NoConsume would do for the first one?) Alp. > > > ================ > Comment at: include/clang/Parse/Parser.h:751 > @@ -741,3 +750,3 @@ > /// token will ever occur, this skips to the next token, or to some likely > - /// good stopping point. If StopAtSemi is true, skipping will stop at a > ';' > - /// character. > + /// good stopping point. If Flags has bit set at StopAtSemi, skipping will > + /// stop at a ';' character. > ---------------- > The wording "has bit set" seems strange. > > > http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2108 > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits -- http://www.nuanti.com the browser experts _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
