ChuanqiXu added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Sema/Sema.h:2899-2909 + /// C++ [dcl.fct.def.general]p1 + /// function-body: + /// = delete ; + /// = default ; + Delete, + Default, + ---------------- rZhBoYao wrote: > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > Agree to @erichkeane > With all due respect, this code suggestion doesn't make any sense to me. My > best guess is @ChuanqiXu was thinking the order specified by the grammar as > noted in [[ https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.fct.def.general#nt:function-body | > dcl.fct.def.general p1 ]]. Even if that was the case, `CompoundStmt` is not > quite right either. Also, differentiating `ctor-initializer[opt] > compound-statement` and `function-try-block` is meaningless here, hence the > name `Other`. > > I adopted the same order as to how `Parser::ParseFunctionDefinition` has > always been parsing `function-body`. The order is not significant in any > meaningful way as each of the 4 grammar productions of `function-body` is > VERY different and mutually exclusive. Putting `Delete` and `Default` upfront > not only emphasizes the "specialness" of them but also conveys how we handle > `function-body`. > > What say you, @erichkeane ? Yeah, the order comes from the standard. I think the comment should be consistent with the spec. And for the name, I agree `CompoundStmt` is not accurate indeed... I thought Default should be a good name but there is `Default` already. But I don't feel `Other` is good since the compound-statement is much more common. > Putting Delete and Default upfront not only emphasizes the "specialness" of > them but also conveys how we handle function-body. This don't makes sense. Generally, we would put common items in front. And the order here shouldn't be related to the implementation. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122981/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122981 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
