mizvekov added a comment. In D100733#2761031 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100733#2761031>, @rsmith wrote:
> What do we think about renaming `isRValue()` to `isPRValue()` and renaming > `VK_RValue` to `VK_PRValue`, adding a "real" `isRValue()`, and then > performing this cleanup? I think the current state of treating "rvalue" as > sometimes meaning rvalue and sometimes meaning "prvalue" is unhelpful and > confusing, and this change makes it worse because `isRValue` *could* be > checking for an rvalue whereas a comparison against `VK_RValue` more clearly > is only looking for one specific value category rather than two. Sounds good. For some reason I thought this would be more controversial... Is there any special reason we ended up in this state of affairs with the swapped out names? 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
