stephanemoore added a comment.
I did some digging and I believe there are two approaches that we can take to
extend `isDerivedFrom` to support Objective-C classes.
**Option 1: Match on Common Ancestor Declaration Type**:
Convert `isDerivedFrom` to match on the common ancestor declaration type,
`NamedDecl`, and return `false` for
declaration types other than `CXXRecordDecl` and `ObjCInterfaceDecl`.
Advantages:
• Largely works in-place without requiring major changes to matchers built on
top of `isDerivedFrom`.
Disadvantages:
• Allows nonsensical matchers, e.g., `functionDecl(isDerivedFrom("X"))`.
**Option 2: Convert to Polymorphic Matcher**:
Convert `isDerivedFrom` to a polymorphic matcher supporting `CXXRecordDecl` and
`ObjCInterfaceDecl`.
Advantages:
• Restricts usage of `isDerivedFrom` to `CXXRecordDecl` and `ObjCInterfaceDecl`.
Disadvantages:
• Potentially requires many or all matchers using `isDerivedFrom` to refactor
to adapt to the polymorphic matcher interface.
**Evaluation**
I have been going back and forth as to which approach is superior. Option 1
promotes source stability at the cost of usability while
option 2 seems to promote usability at the cost of source stability. I exported
a portrayal of option 1 for consideration as it
required less invasive changes. I can see arguments supporting both approaches.
What do you think? Which of the two approaches do you think we should go with?
Is there another approach that I have not thought of?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60543/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60543
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
