HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment. In D119138#3951749 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119138#3951749>, @klimek wrote:
> Generally, why do we need to have that much information? I.e. why do we need > to know the exact type of the "requires" keyword? > I do understand we need to know the brace type, but that seems like it would > be easier to figure out in the TokenAnnotator (where we already parsed > UnwrappedLines). > Do we ever parse UnwrappedLines differently depending on requires > clauses/expressions? > If not, we should really do the annotation in TokenAnnotator, where we > already have nice parsing bounds from the parsed UnwrappedLines. Who is //we//, I'm not part of that //we// and haven't heard of some macro improvements. And I don't see how that feature is harming //you//, but be my guest in changing that. If you look into the history of this change I had a heuristic approach which would only look behind to differentiate. I don't know if that can be solved in the `TokenAnnotator`, but //you// and I have different opinions about that. I'd put more annotating in the `UnwrappedLineParser`, annotate it as soon as we can. I'll happily review any changes proposed, but I will not rework this piece of code, unless I can see a big flaw in it (which I can't right now). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119138/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119138 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
