aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3300
+/// matches `x.m()` and `p->m()`.
+AST_MATCHER_P_OVERLOAD(clang::CXXMemberCallExpr, invokedAtType,
+ clang::ast_matchers::internal::Matcher<clang::QualType>,
----------------
ymandel wrote:
> ymandel wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > alexfh wrote:
> > > > The name of the matcher doesn't tell me much. I had to carefully read
> > > > the documentation to understand what is it about. I don't have a name
> > > > that would raise no questions and wouldn't be too verbose at the same
> > > > time, but a bit of verbosity wouldn't hurt I guess. How about
> > > > `objectTypeAsWritten`?
> > > Yeah, I think this would be a better name. Also, having some examples
> > > that demonstrate where this behavior differs from `thisPointerType` would
> > > be helpful.
> > Agreed that it needs a new name, but I'm having trouble finding one I'm
> > satisfied with. Here's the full description: "the type of the written
> > implicit object argument". I base this phrasing on the class
> > CXXMemberCallExpr's terminology. In `x.f(5)`, `x` is the implicit object
> > argument, whether or not it is also implicitly surrounded by a cast. That
> > is, "implicit" has two different meanings in this context.
> >
> > So, with that, how about `writtenObjectType`? It's close to
> > `objectTypeAsWritten` but I'm hoping it makes more clear that the "written"
> > part is the object not the type.
> I've contrasted the behavior with thisPointerType in both of the examples. Do
> you think this helps or do you want something more explicit?
Here's a totally different direction: `onOrPointsToType()`
```
cxxMemberCallExpr(onOrPointsToType(hasDeclaration(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("Y")))))
```
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3300
+/// matches `x.m()` and `p->m()`.
+AST_MATCHER_P_OVERLOAD(clang::CXXMemberCallExpr, invokedAtType,
+ clang::ast_matchers::internal::Matcher<clang::QualType>,
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> ymandel wrote:
> > ymandel wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > alexfh wrote:
> > > > > The name of the matcher doesn't tell me much. I had to carefully read
> > > > > the documentation to understand what is it about. I don't have a name
> > > > > that would raise no questions and wouldn't be too verbose at the same
> > > > > time, but a bit of verbosity wouldn't hurt I guess. How about
> > > > > `objectTypeAsWritten`?
> > > > Yeah, I think this would be a better name. Also, having some examples
> > > > that demonstrate where this behavior differs from `thisPointerType`
> > > > would be helpful.
> > > Agreed that it needs a new name, but I'm having trouble finding one I'm
> > > satisfied with. Here's the full description: "the type of the written
> > > implicit object argument". I base this phrasing on the class
> > > CXXMemberCallExpr's terminology. In `x.f(5)`, `x` is the implicit object
> > > argument, whether or not it is also implicitly surrounded by a cast.
> > > That is, "implicit" has two different meanings in this context.
> > >
> > > So, with that, how about `writtenObjectType`? It's close to
> > > `objectTypeAsWritten` but I'm hoping it makes more clear that the
> > > "written" part is the object not the type.
> > I've contrasted the behavior with thisPointerType in both of the examples.
> > Do you think this helps or do you want something more explicit?
> Here's a totally different direction: `onOrPointsToType()`
> ```
> cxxMemberCallExpr(onOrPointsToType(hasDeclaration(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("Y")))))
> ```
>
I think more explicit would be better. e.g.,
```
cxxMemberCallExpr(invokedAtType(hasDeclaration(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("X")))))
matches 'x.m()' and 'p->m()'.
cxxMemberCallExpr(on(thisPointerType(hasDeclaration(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("X"))))))
matches nothing because the type of 'this' is 'Y' in both cases.
```
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56851/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56851
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
