ymandel marked 3 inline comments as done. ymandel 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>, ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > 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. > ``` But, what about even simpler: onType? I think this parallels the intuition of the name thisPointerType. onType(T) should match x.f and x->f, where x is type T. 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