================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.h:137
@@ -136,2 +136,3 @@
- /// \brief Finds all matches on the given \c Node.
+ /// \brief Triggers on all matches on the given \c Node.
+ ///
----------------
Triggers what? I presume it is the registered callbacks?
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.h:146
@@ +145,3 @@
+ }
+ void match(const clang::ast_type_traits::DynTypedNode &Node,
+ ASTContext &Context);
----------------
Should this be in the public interface?
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.h:167
@@ -160,1 +166,3 @@
+/// \brief Returns the results of matching \c Matcher on \c Node.
+///
----------------
How about: "Returns the set of bound nodes for each match of \c Matcher under
\c Node."
The "under" is also used below, but I don't know whether it makes perfectly
clear that the matcher is matched on Node and all of its descendants.
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.h:184
@@ +183,3 @@
+template <typename T>
+SmallVector<const T *, 1> findAll(internal::BindableMatcher<T> Matcher,
+ const Stmt &Node, ASTContext &Context);
----------------
Are you intentionally reusing the name of the methods you deleted above?
Could this be templated and then work with other node types?
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.h:222
@@ +221,3 @@
+ SmallVector<BoundNodes, 1> Nodes =
+ match(stmt(forEachDescendant(Matcher.bind(""))),
+ ast_type_traits::DynTypedNode::create(Node), Context);
----------------
This does not match on \c Node itself, right? I think it should (and it also
did with the old findAll functions).
================
Comment at: lib/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.cpp:473
@@ +472,3 @@
+ void match(const ast_type_traits::DynTypedNode& Node) {
+ for (std::vector<std::pair<const internal::DynTypedMatcher*,
+ MatchCallback*> >::const_iterator
----------------
This was just moved, right? Otherwise, I'd say "consider using a typedef" ;-)...
================
Comment at: unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTest.cpp:3482
@@ +3481,3 @@
+public:
+ explicit VerifyMatchOnNode(StringRef Id,
+ const internal::Matcher<T> &InnerMatcher)
----------------
nit: no need for explicit ..
================
Comment at: unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTest.cpp:3500
@@ +3499,3 @@
+TEST(MatchFinder, CanMatchSingleNodesRecursively) {
+ EXPECT_TRUE(matchAndVerifyResultTrue(
+ "class X { class Y {}; };", recordDecl(hasName("::X")).bind("X"),
----------------
Independent of whether you change the behavior or not, I'd like a test where
the recursive match happens on the node itself. (Probably easiest to use a
function declaration for that to not get confused with the generated class name
thing).
================
Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.h:219
@@ +218,3 @@
+template <typename T>
+SmallVector<const T *, 1> findAll(internal::BindableMatcher<T> Matcher,
+ const Stmt &Node, ASTContext &Context) {
----------------
During the experiments I have conducted, it was really convenient to pass in a
matcher as well as a string to which stuff is bound in that matcher. I am aware
that it is a slightly worse interface, but it gives significantly more freedom.
And I think nothing can fail horribly, if nothing gets bound, then nothing is
returned.
So my suggestion is: Add a second method that additionally takes a string
"BoundTo" and implement this function here by just calling the other one.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D359
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
