On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Sam Panzer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Several places in the codebase determine if a method is const or > volatile by > > querying the method's type qualifiers directly, but it makes sense to > > centralize the (simple) logic directly in CXXMethodDecl. It's > particularly > > useful for refactoring tools :) > > Given that they're already members on CXXMethodDecl, the "Method" in > the name seems a bit redundant (I'm not dead set on this, though - I > appreciate that "isConst" might be a bit more unclear than the > existing things like "isVirtual", etc) would "isConst" and > "isVolatile" suffice? > I considered "isConst" and "isConstQualified" along with "isConstMethod" - mostly to distinguish between type qualifier const and method qualifier const. I don't think "isConst" is unclear so long as it is accessed from a well-named variable. > > Also how do these methods fail if the method is a static member > function? Would it be helpful to have an assert there to ensure these > are only called on non-static member functions? > Yes! Asserts added.
const-method.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
