aaron.ballman added reviewers: sammccall, dblaikie.
aaron.ballman added subscribers: sammccall, dblaikie.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
Pinging @klimek , @sammccall , and @dblaikie to see if there are some opinions
about overloading `hasName` (and possibly other naming related questions).
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3553
+/// \endcode
+AST_MATCHER_P(CXXBaseSpecifier, hasClass, internal::Matcher<CXXRecordDecl>,
+ InnerMatcher) {
----------------
jkorous wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > 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`.
> >> 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.
>
> What I meant is that technically we can overload any `Matcher<CXXRecordDecl>`
> matcher in the same fashion so having the overloaded version of `hasName`
> only makes it somewhat special (and someone might argue that it'd impact
> consistency of matchers composability). Anyway, I'm fine with your suggestion!
Ah, I see what you mean -- thanks for explaining. I'm on the fence about this.
One the one hand, base specifiers *in the AST* do not have names, so it seems
defensible to say that `hasName` should not handle a base specifier. On the
other hand, base specifiers *in the language* are identifiers that always have
a name, so it seems defensible to say that `hashName` should handle a base
specifier.
Pulling in some more folks to see if a wider audience brings consensus.
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
