================ Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:2953 @@ +2952,3 @@ +/// \c lvalueReferenceType() matches the type of \c b. +AST_TYPE_MATCHER(LValueReferenceType, lvalueReferenceType); + ---------------- Edwin Vane wrote: > Manuel Klimek wrote: > > Seems like the correct indentation would be lValueReferenceType? (I can see > > why we might not want that ;) > I was going to argue the spec treats 'lvalue' as a noun and so keeping with > matchers not capitalizing the first word I chose that option. But I see now > the precedent has already been set: LLVM treats 'lvalue' as two words (at > least for capitalization) otherwise it'd be clang::LvalueReferenceType. Stick > with the precedent? sg
================ Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:2942 @@ +2941,3 @@ +/// +/// See C++ [dcl.ref]. +/// ---------------- Edwin Vane wrote: > Manuel Klimek wrote: > > I'd vote against putting in comments that reference the C++ standard. > > Instead, we should put those comments on the AST nodes themselves. If I > > remember correctly, there was a lot of agreement on the idea of better > > doxygen comments for the AST nodes, but so far nobody has stepped up :) > I'm about to add a bunch more comments suggested from @gribozavr that > reference the spec. I can leave out the cross references but can I at least > still mention 'reference collapsing rules'? If you have a full sentence explanation that will be easier to understand with a spec reference, go for it. I don't think it's necessary to reference to lvalue and rvalue references, though. http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D503 BRANCH rlvalue_ref ARCANIST PROJECT clang _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
