aaron.ballman marked 7 inline comments as done.
aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/LangOptions.h:534
+ /// Returns true if implicit int is supported at all.
+ bool implicitIntEnabled() const { return !CPlusPlus && !C2x; }
+
----------------
cor3ntin wrote:
> erichkeane wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > cor3ntin wrote:
> > > > > erichkeane wrote:
> > > > > > This name seems inverse of what you mean to me? IDK if you're
> > > > > > bike-shed-sniping me here, but:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > `prohibitsImplicitInt` to be the reverse of above? It becomes
> > > > > > SLIGHTLY ambiguous to me (in that we don't mean "the language
> > > > > > standard prohibits", we mean "the compiler implementation
> > > > > > prohibits"), but that can be fixed up with a comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want to keep the direction, perhaps `implicitIntPermitted`,
> > > > > > at which point I might suggest the one above become
> > > > > > `implicitIntRequired`.
> > > > > @erichkeane `requiresImplicitInt` is only used twice. Does it needs a
> > > > > name?
> > > > >
> > > > *shrug*, I tend to be of the feeling that if you have to say something
> > > > this often, and functions are basically free, mind as well make one.
> > > The idea here is that `requiresImplicitInt()` tells you when the support
> > > is mandatory per spec, and `implicitIntEnabled()` tells you when the
> > > support is either mandatory or an extension. I'm not strongly tied to the
> > > names, how do these sound?
> > >
> > > `isImplicitIntRequired()` and `isImplicitIntAllowed()`?
> > >
> > > (I could also add the word `Support` in there as in
> > > `isImplicitIntSupportRequired()` but then the function names start to get
> > > a bit longer than I think is reasonable.)
> > >> The idea here is that requiresImplicitInt() tells you when the support
> > >> is mandatory per spec, and implicitIntEnabled() tells you when the
> > >> support is either mandatory or an extension. I'm not strongly tied to
> > >> the names, how do these sound?
> >
> > Well, as it is now, the latter tells you whether 'it is allowed as an
> > extension'.
> >
> >
> > >>`isImplicitIntRequired()` and `isImplicitIntAllowed()`?
> >
> > These seem pretty clear to me. I don't see 'Support' as being valuable.
> >
> `implicitIntEnabled` makes sense to me. I guess my question is, is there
> precedence for options for language-mandated features?
> I guess my question is, is there precedence for options for language-mandated
> features?
Sure, though many of them also have user-facing command line flags to set the
options. (wchar_t support, digraphs, etc)
I added these as helper functions mostly because there's no way to have
language options whose default value is dependent on other language options.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124258/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D124258
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
