njames93 added a comment. In D76196#1923524 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D76196#1923524>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I don't think this is a natural fit for the functionality. A statement > expression doesn't have a return value so much as it is a value expression > that can contain multiple statements. To me, at least, this is a bit like > saying the comma operator has a return value because you can do `int i; i = > 1, 2, 3;` and it "returns" 3. > > Can you explain a bit about why you need this matcher functionality? I wasn't sure where to best place this and I was well aware of the comma operator acting similarly. The idea behind it is the first `N-1` statements in a `StmtExpr` with `N` aren't as relevant as the final `Stmt` if its an `Expr` Maybe hasFinalExpression(InnerMatcher<Expr>) would be a better way WDYT? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D76196/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D76196 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
