eduucaldas added a comment. > Compared to Dmitri's prototype, Nodes.td looks more like a class hierarchy and > less like a grammar. (E.g. variants list the Alternatives parent rather than > vice versa).
> e.g. we may introduce abstract bases like "loop" that the grammar doesn't > care about in order to model is-a concepts that might make refactorings more > expressive. This is less natural in a grammar-like idiom. Do you have a concrete example of such abstract base -- loop is in the grammar <https://eel.is/c++draft/stmt.iter#nt:iteration-statement> ? And in the case such an example appear, in my mind we would just change "our grammar" to have an alternative for this "loop" abstract base. > e.g. we're likely to have to model some alternatives as variants and others > as class hierarchies, the choice will probably be based on natural is-a > relationships. I agree, alternatives and the two ways to model them are a tricky subject... > it reduces the cognitive load of switching from editing *.td to working with > code that uses the generated classes I think we should consider reading prior to editing. A grammar is how we represent syntax, and syntax trees model syntax, as such I think we should rather consider the cognitive load of switching between the grammar and the definition of syntax trees. I have a lot to improve in my writing skills, so I don't know if I could express all my thoughts. We could have a call if you want ;) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90543/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90543 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
