arphaman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Tooling/Refactoring/Rename/RenamingAction.cpp:101
+ std::string NewQualifiedName) {
+ return QualifiedRenameRule(std::move(OldQualifiedName),
+ std::move(NewQualifiedName));
----------------
ioeric wrote:
> hokein wrote:
> > arphaman wrote:
> > > It might be better to find the declaration (and report error if needed)
> > > during in initiation, and then pass the `ND` to the class. Maybe then
> > > both `RenameOccurrences` and `QualifiedRenameRule` could subclass from
> > > one base class that actually does just this:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > auto USRs = getUSRsForDeclaration(ND, Context.getASTContext());
> > > assert(!USRs.empty());
> > > return tooling::createRenameAtomicChanges(
> > > USRs, NewQualifiedName,
> > > Context.getASTContext().getTranslationUnitDecl());
> > > ```
> > Done. Introduced a common interface `USRRenameRule`.
> `USRRenameRule` doesn't seem to be a very useful abstraction. I think what
> Alex proposed is a base class that implements `createSourceReplacements`
> which could be shared by both `RenameOccurrences` and `QualifiedRenameRule`.
> Intuitively, un-qualified rename is a special case of qualified rename
> (maybe?), where namespace is not changed.
Yep, I meant that indeed.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39332
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
