jrtc27 added a comment. In D92269#2421399 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D92269#2421399>, @Paul-C-Anagnostopoulos wrote:
> Yes, we could create !codeconcat instead, along with !codeinterleave, > !codeeq, etc. We could also just extend the existing bang operators to work > on the code type. I thought it was cleaner just to get rid of the distinction. You wouldn't need a new !eq, you can just add another overloading. Really there should probably be an overloaded !concat that works on string, bits, list and code; !strconcat is the unusual case where it's qualified with the type in the name. > I agree that !subst is a mess, even without this change. My plan is > eventually to implement a saner !replace. But I'm not sure why doing string > replacement in code is sad. There is even a utility to do it: > GlobalISel\CodeExpander. I was confused and thought !subst was substring not substitute, which is normally a meaningless operation to perform on code. Substitution is less weird, thought normally the useful/meaningful representation for code is something like a list of tokens which would make !subst a bit more useful as currently you just get raw string replacement which risks all manner of false positives for matches. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92269/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92269 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
