aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3553
+/// \endcode
+AST_MATCHER_P(CXXBaseSpecifier, hasClass, internal::Matcher<CXXRecordDecl>,
+ InnerMatcher) {
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> jkorous wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > jkorous wrote:
> > > > Nit: while "[base specifier] `hasType`" sounds natural to me for some
> > > > reason `hasClass` doesn't. English is not my first language though.
> > > I agree that `hasClass` seems unnatural here. Out of curiosity, could we
> > > modify the `hasName` matcher to work on base specifiers so you can write:
> > > `cxxRecordDecl(hasAnyBase(hasName("Base")))` as shorthand for the more
> > > wordy version
> > > `cxxRecordDecl(hasAnyBase(hasType(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("Base")))))`?
> > Wouldn't it be strange to treat `hasName` differently than all the other
> > narrowing matchers? Honest question - I feel that `hasName` might be the
> > most commonly used, just don't know if that's enough to justify this.
> > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/LibASTMatchersReference.html#narrowing-matchers
> Repurposing `hasName` would be a pain especially considering 99% of its use
> cases wont be for base class matching.
> Wouldn't it be strange to treat hasName differently than all the other
> narrowing matchers? Honest question - I feel that hasName might be the most
> commonly used, just don't know if that's enough to justify this.
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/LibASTMatchersReference.html#narrowing-matchers
Different how? I'm suggesting to overload `hasName` to work on a
`CXXBaseSpecifier` since those have a name.
> Repurposing hasName would be a pain especially considering 99% of its use
> cases wont be for base class matching.
I'm asking what the right API is for users, though, which is a bit different.
Base specifiers have names (there are no unnamed base specifiers), so to me, it
makes more sense for `hasName` to work with them directly since that is the
thing that does name matching.
I think you can accomplish this by using a `PolymorphicMatcherWithParam1` like
we do for `hasOverloadedOperatorName` which can narrow to either a
`CXXOperatorCallExpr` or a `FunctionDecl`.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3621
+/// \endcode
+AST_MATCHER_P(CXXBaseSpecifier, hasClassOrClassTemplate,
+ internal::Matcher<CXXRecordDecl>, InnerMatcher) {
----------------
jkorous wrote:
> I think we should just use `eachOf` matcher for this kind of composition.
>
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/LibASTMatchersReference.html#traversal-matchers
+1
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81552/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81552
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
