ymandel added a comment.
In D61335#1489680 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61335#1489680>, @ilya-biryukov
wrote:
> > As for naming, agreed, but does that concern drop away once we have only a
> > single RewriteRule definition?
>
> Sure, that won't be an issue.
>
> The use-cases make sense, thanks for the examples. Could you add one or two
> to the code? Would probably make sense to express them in code as matchers,
> rather than explaining what we're trying to do in a natural language.
Sounds good, will do.
> Let's proceed with making `RewriteRule` the vocabulary type that we use for
> transformations like this if we both agree that's a good idea.
> There are obviously multiple ways to tackle this, which one you had in mind?
Something like this, although if you have a better name than `RewriteAction`
I'm open to alternatives. e.g. `RewriteCase`?
struct RewriteAction {
SmallVector<ASTEdit, 1> Edits;
TextGenerator Explanation;
};
struct RewriteRule {
ast_matchers::internal::DynTypedMatcher Matcher;
std::vector<RewriteAction> Actions;
static constexpr llvm::StringLiteral RootId = "___root___";
};
Or, nest the definition:
struct RewriteRule {
struct Action {
SmallVector<ASTEdit, 1> Edits;
TextGenerator Explanation;
};
ast_matchers::internal::DynTypedMatcher Matcher;
std::vector<Action> Actions;
static constexpr llvm::StringLiteral RootId = "___root___";
};
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61335/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61335
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
