steveire added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:2867
+extern const internal::MapAnyOfMatcher<CallExpr, CXXConstructExpr>
+ callOrConstruct;
+
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I'm not super keen on this name. It's certainly descriptive, but I do wonder
> if it's a bit too specific and should perhaps be something more like
> `callableExpr()`, `callLikeExpr()`, or something more generic. For instance,
> I could imagine wanting this to match on something like:
> ```
> struct S {
> void setter(int val) {}
> __declspec(property(put = setter)) int x;
> };
>
> int main() {
> S s;
> s.x = 12; // Match here
> // Because the above code actually does this:
> // s.setter(12);
> }
> ```
> because this also has an expression that isn't really a call (as far as our
> AST is concerned) but is a call as far as program semantics are concerned.
> I'm not suggesting to make the matcher support that right now (unless you
> felt like doing it), but thinking about the future and avoiding a name that
> may paint us into a corner.
>
> WDYT about using a more generic name?
I haven't seen code like that before (ms extension?)
https://godbolt.org/z/anvd43 but I think that should be matched by
`binaryOperator` instead. That already matches based on what the code looks
like, rather than what it is in the AST.
This `callOrConstruct` is really for using `hasArgument` and related
submatchers with nodes which support it. As such I think the name is fine. I
don't like `callableExpr` or `callLikeExpr` because they don't bring to mind
the possibility that construction is also supported.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D94865/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D94865
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
