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:
> 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.
You've pointed out why I don't think `onType` works -- it doesn't match on type
T -- it matches on type T, or a pointer/reference to type T, which is pretty
different. Someone reading the matcher may expect an exact type match and
insert a `pointerType()` or something there thinking they need to do that to
match a call through a pointer.
@alexfh, opinions?
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTraversalTest.cpp:473
+TEST(MatcherCXXMemberCallExpr, InvokedAtType) {
+ auto M = cxxMemberCallExpr(invokedAtType(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("Y"))));
----------------
The test name is using the old name for the matcher.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTraversalTest.cpp:474
+TEST(MatcherCXXMemberCallExpr, InvokedAtType) {
+ auto M = cxxMemberCallExpr(invokedAtType(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("Y"))));
+ EXPECT_TRUE(matches(
----------------
Same here as well.
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
