ymandel added a comment. In D75365#1900784 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75365#1900784>, @gribozavr2 wrote:
> +1 to this fix. > > However, regarding `allOf` vs. `anyOf` semantics, since `optionally` always > succeeds, is there a difference between the two semantics? > > It seems to me that there should be no difference between > `allOf(optionally(a), optionally(b))` vs. `anyOf(optionally(a), > optionally(b))`. I think the difference is in whether you continue with the submatchers after a success. Allof does while anyof does not. That said, the original issue was forEach vs allOf/anyOf. So, I think Aaron's point holds - let optionally take one argument and then leave it to the user to explicitly specify forEach, allOf, anyOf, etc. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75365/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75365 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
