gribozavr added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Tooling/Refactoring/Stencil.h:181
+/// This supports user-defined extensions to the Stencil language.
+StencilPart run(MatchConsumer<std::string> C);
+
----------------
We could reimplement all other stencils through `run()` and eliminate
`StencilPartInterface`.
The idea is to make `StencilPart` contain a
`std::shared_ptr<MatchConsumer<std::string>>`. Then `run()` can be implemented
as creating a `StencilPart` directly, and everything else can be implemented in
terms of `run()`.
WDYT?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Refactoring/Stencil.cpp:107
+// Equality is not defined over MatchConsumers, which are opaque.
+bool isEqualData(const MatchConsumer<std::string> &A,
+ const MatchConsumer<std::string> &B) {
----------------
Not very appropriate for this review -- but why do Stencils support equality
comparison? As you note, with things like `run` it makes little sense to
support it as an API. However, since a user does not know whether a Stencil can
contain `run` or not, it is not very meaningful to compare them at all.
So if equality is not used for anything important, consider removing it?
Not to even mention that as implemented, equality is not reflexive.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67969/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67969
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
