On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:01 AM, Enea Zaffanella <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 04:27 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > >> We should really rename getStorageClassSpec to >>> getStorageClassSpecAsWritten, >>> too, to reduce the risk of it accidentally being used to determine the >>> storage class for a variable. >>> >> >> We always want these to be AsWritten, so renaming just this one looks >> a bit odd. My preference would be to keep the shorter name (i.e. LGTM >> Enea's patch), but if we are going to rename getStorageClassSpec we >> should rename getStorageClass too. >> >> Cheers, >> Rafael >> > > > My 2 cents: > > - getStorageClassSpec() is a method of DeclSpec, whose instances are > transient objects built during parsing and die soon after being used to > construct the AST nodes; these objects typically only contain syntactic > stuff, so the "AsWritten" suffix seems redundant; > > - getStorageClass() is a method of VarDecl/FunctionDecl nodes; > AST nodes have a longer lifetime and usually mix both syntactic and > semantic info; the method is used, for instance, in CodeGen and Analysis > ... I guess these ones care more about semantics. > Hence, adding the "AsWritten" suffix here seems a reasonable choice to > warn some of the AST clients. > Sorry, my bad, I meant to say that we should rename getStorageClass, not getStorageClassAsWritten. We really don't want VarDecl::getStorageClass to continue returning something other than the storage class of the variable declaration. > Anyway, if any renaming is to be done, it should go in its own patch. > Therefore, OK to commit the submitted patch? Yes, please go ahead.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
