eduucaldas added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/Syntax/TreeTest.cpp:2805
-TEST_P(SyntaxTreeTest, UserDefinedBinaryOperator) {
+TEST_P(SyntaxTreeTest, UserDefinedOperator_Assignment) {
if (!GetParam().isCXX()) {
----------------
gribozavr2 wrote:
> UserDefinedOperator => OverloadedOperator?
>
> "user-defined" seems to suggest that the operator was previously not a thing
> in C++.
Actually it is a very good point! Thanks!
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Tooling/Syntax/TreeTest.cpp:3393
-TEST_P(SyntaxTreeTest, UserDefinedUnaryPostfixOperator) {
+TEST_P(SyntaxTreeTest, UserDefinedOperator_PostfixIncr) {
if (!GetParam().isCXX()) {
----------------
gribozavr2 wrote:
> PostfixIncrement
>
> Also, group it right after prefix increment?
I'm grouping together Prefix operators. But you're right it makes sense to put
them close to each other. I've put PrefixIncrement as the last Prefix operator
to achieve that
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85819/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85819
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
