On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Justin Bogner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alexander Kornienko <[email protected]> writes: > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Justin Bogner <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Sebastian Edman <[email protected]> writes: > >>> Hi alexfh, danielmarjamaki, > >>> > >>> Added possibilty to extract the arguments in a MacroInfo as a > >>> container in order to use C++11 style for loops. > >>> > >>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D9934 > >>> > >>> Files: > >>> include/clang/Lex/MacroInfo.h > >>> lib/Lex/PPMacroExpansion.cpp > >>> lib/Serialization/ASTWriter.cpp > >>> > >>> Index: include/clang/Lex/MacroInfo.h > >>> =================================================================== > >>> --- include/clang/Lex/MacroInfo.h > >>> +++ include/clang/Lex/MacroInfo.h > >>> @@ -182,6 +182,9 @@ > >>> bool arg_empty() const { return NumArguments == 0; } > >>> arg_iterator arg_begin() const { return ArgumentList; } > >>> arg_iterator arg_end() const { return ArgumentList+NumArguments; } > >>> + ArrayRef<IdentifierInfo*> args() const { > >>> + return ArrayRef<IdentifierInfo*>(ArgumentList, NumArguments); > >>> + } > >> > >> It's probably better to use iterator_range from > llvm/ADT/iterator_range.h. > > > > Can you explain why you think it's better than ArrayRef here? > > Primarily consistency, familiarity, and information hiding. > Well, the first two reasons are equally valid for ArrayRef: ArrayRef seems to be used more frequently in LLVM than iterator_range. The last one is arguable: it only matters in the unlikely situation when the underlying storage would need to be changed to something not allowing random access. I'd clearly prefer ArrayRef here. > > - As long as this is only used for range-for, it'll likely be identical > code generated and whoever's using this shouldn't know the difference. > > - Using iterator_range prevents uses such as random access, which limit > how the API can change without needing to change clients. > > - If we do want random access, llvm and clang would generally spell it > getArg(i) rather than args()[i], based on existing code. >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
