jordan_rose added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:1479 +/// \endcode +AST_MATCHER_P(ObjCInterfaceDecl, isSubclassOfInterface, + internal::Matcher<ObjCInterfaceDecl>, ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > jordan_rose wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > stephanemoore wrote: > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > stephanemoore wrote: > > > > > > I am still uncertain about the naming. > > > > > > > > > > > > `isSubclassOf` seemed too generic as that could apply to C++ > > > > > > classes. > > > > > > `objcIsSubclassOf` seemed unconventional as a matcher name. > > > > > > `isSubclassOfObjCInterface` and `isSubclassOfObjCClass` seemed > > > > > > awkwardly lengthy. > > > > > > Creating a new namespace `clang::ast_matchers::objc` seemed > > > > > > unprecedented. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am happy to change the name if you think another name would be > > > > > > more appropriate. > > > > > Does ObjC use the term "derived" by any chance? We already have > > > > > `isDerivedFrom`, so I'm wondering if we can use that to also match on > > > > > an `ObjCInterfaceDecl`? > > > > Objective-C doesn't generally use the term "derived" (for example, see > > > > archive of [Programming With Objective-C > Defining > > > > Classes](https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ProgrammingWithObjectiveC/DefiningClasses/DefiningClasses.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40011210-CH3-SW1)). > > > > With that said, I don't think it's unreasonable or incorrect to use > > > > the term "derived" to describe inheritance in Objective-C. The behavior > > > > of this matcher is also consistent with the behavior of > > > > `isDerivedFrom`. In order to change `isDerivedFrom`, I would also need > > > > to update `isSameOrDerivedFrom`. That would probably be a good thing so > > > > that derivation matching feature set is consistent for C++ and > > > > Objective-C language variants. > > > > > > > > Let me take a crack at merging this into `isDerivedFrom`. > > > I agree that if we go with `isDerivedFrom`, you should update > > > `isSameOrDerivedFrom` at the same time. > > `isSubclassOf` sounds right to me, and since ObjC and C++ class hierarchies > > can't mix, it _should_ be okay, right? They're analogous concepts. > > isSubclassOf sounds right to me, and since ObjC and C++ class hierarchies > > can't mix, it _should_ be okay, right? They're analogous concepts. > > In the AST matchers, we try to overload the matchers that have similar > behavior. My concern is that a user will reach for `isSubclassOf()` when they > really mean `isDerivedFrom()` or vice versa, and only through annoying error > messages learns about their mistake. Given that we already have > `isDerivedFrom()` and renaming it would break code, I was trying to determine > whether using that name for both C++ derivation and ObjC derivation would be > acceptable. Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I guess it's more important to be consistent than to perfectly match the terminology. You will certainly confuse an ObjC-only developer at first by using "non-standard" terminology, but any developer has to learn a certain amount of compiler-isms anyway using AST matchers. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60543/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60543 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
