psigillito added a comment.
Ok, as I was starting to add a new language, the scope of changes just
continued to grow.
If you think it is worthwhile, I think I can fix this edge case for
accessSpecifiers by cleaning up my old approach and adding some tests. I dont
like having to add a big set of operators to check against for handling the
case where there is a typo and the colon is missing i.e.
class foo {
private
bool jim;
public:
bool bob;
};
I think this is probably the most common error so I think we should support it.
I don't think the delete issue in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/46915 is worth the added
complexity. Without specifying the language, it is too hard to interpret the
programmer's intention. For example, these are totally valid as either a delete
or a function call:
delete(foo) // foo is a pointer being deleted
delete(bar) // bar is a parameter to a function
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117416/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117416
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
