jkorous added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3553
+/// \endcode
+AST_MATCHER_P(CXXBaseSpecifier, hasClass, internal::Matcher<CXXRecordDecl>,
+ InnerMatcher) {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> jkorous wrote:
> > Nit: while "[base specifier] `hasType`" sounds natural to me for some
> > reason `hasClass` doesn't. English is not my first language though.
> I agree that `hasClass` seems unnatural here. Out of curiosity, could we
> modify the `hasName` matcher to work on base specifiers so you can write:
> `cxxRecordDecl(hasAnyBase(hasName("Base")))` as shorthand for the more wordy
> version `cxxRecordDecl(hasAnyBase(hasType(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("Base")))))`?
Wouldn't it be strange to treat `hasName` differently than all the other
narrowing matchers? Honest question - I feel that `hasName` might be the most
commonly used, just don't know if that's enough to justify this.
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/LibASTMatchersReference.html#narrowing-matchers
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81552/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81552
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
