rZhBoYao marked 2 inline comments as done. rZhBoYao 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, + ---------------- ChuanqiXu wrote: > 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. > But I don't feel `Other` is good since the compound-statement is much more > common. `Other` reads "not special like `Delete` and `Default`". > This don't makes sense. Generally, we would put common items in front. And > the order here shouldn't be related to the implementation. Think of it as a not-so-special else clause at the end of an if/else chain. We tend to process special cases upfront. It is only natural. I'll await @erichkeane 's final verdict. 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
