ymandel added a comment. In D75365#1898536 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75365#1898536>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> ... > Good question! My intuition is that `optionally` should take exactly one > argument and the user should be explicit as to whether they mean `allOf` or > `anyOf` when there is a list of optional matchers. Defaulting to the `allOf` > behavior for a list may be surprising to some folks because the `anyOf` > behavior also seems reasonable for a list of optional matchers. WDYT? Sounds good to me. That's my ideal solution. Will update my patch and send along... Thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75365/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75365 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
