aaronpuchert added a subscriber: aaron.ballman. aaronpuchert added a comment.
@aaron.ballman, what do you think about this? We can't really prevent anyone from writing `.getValueKind() == VK_*Value` instead of `.is*Value()`, so this change will make things consistent only for now. In D100733#2697540 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100733#2697540>, @mizvekov wrote: > In D100733#2697537 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100733#2697537>, @aaronpuchert > wrote: > >> The change seems to be correct, but I'm wondering if `x.getValueKind() == >> VK_*Value` doesn't have one advantage over `x.is*Value()`: it's obvious that >> this is exclusive with the other values. Especially with `isRValue()` it >> might not be so obvious, because Clang doesn't follow the C++11 terminology >> with this. >> >> But it's admittedly shorter, so I'd be willing to approve this. > > This came up in a patch where I am experimenting with a new value category. Not sure how to feel about this, the value categories are already hard to grasp for most C++ programmers. To solve the implicit move concerns with a new value category seems like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. But that's not directly related to this change, we can discuss this when the change is there. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100733/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100733 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
