On 03/05/2013 05:46 PM, Vane, Edwin wrote:
Am I missing something in this patch? The matchers you're proposing are exactly
equivalent to the old ones, you're just changing the order in which the LHS and
RHS matchers are listed.
The first part of the patch is for readability and consistency with the
second part. But in the second part, I inverted the patterns inside the
invocations of hasLHS and hasRHS so that the code reflects what is
intended (that is, to match i<10 and not 10<i).
Béatrice.
Is that right? If so, the order doesn't affect functionality. Is this mean to
be a readability fix?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Béatrice Creusillet
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 11:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Patch for LibASTMatchersTutorial.rst (Step 3)
Hi everybody,
I propose the attached patch so that the code matches the text.
Regards,
Béatrice.
--
Béatrice Creusillet
SILKAN - www.silkan.com
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
