erichkeane added a comment. In D133468#3799557 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133468#3799557>, @mizvekov wrote:
> In D133468#3799522 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133468#3799522>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> as far as `Divergent`, I wonder if we should call it something more >> descriptive, since it isn't just that it 'differs', it is that it is a >> non-canonical version, right? > > Well, currently without this patch TypedefTypes and UsingTypes can already > have a non-canonical underlying type, it's just that we only store a > reference to the declaration and we access the non-canonical type from there. Ah, right, hrmph. > The canonical type is still stored in the type itself, like any other type of > course. > > "Divergent" is a term I came up with, but I would be all ears for a better > alternative. > > I considered that calling it just `Different` but that didn't sound right, > even though its synonymous. > > I considered calling it `hasDifferentUnderlyingTypefromDeclaration` but felt > that was too verbose. I agree with all of that, but still am not thrilled at 'Divergent', it isn't particularly descriptive... `Divergent` has some additional implications that I'm not sure we mean as well (that is, it isn't a perfect synonym for `different`). Perhaps something more like `hasLessCanonicalizedType` or `hasMoreSpecificType` or something like that? I'm grasping a little, but I think I would like it to be more clear that we're storing the SAME type, just with additional sugar. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133468/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133468 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
