================
Comment at: lib/ASTMatchers/Dynamic/DynMatchers.cpp:35
@@ +34,3 @@
+ ast_matchers::internal::BoundNodesTreeBuilder *Builder) const {
+ return M1->matches(DynNode, Finder, Builder) ||
+ M2->matches(DynNode, Finder, Builder);
----------------
Manuel Klimek wrote:
> How much harder would it be to not re-implement the matchers? I'd like to
> keep matcher implementations as cohesive as possible, as we want to be able
> to change the implementations when we introduce new features.
The ones that are easier to reimplement are the ones that are way too generic,
like anything() or equals().
anything() returns a polymorphic matcher which is not a DynTypedMatcher.
I don't have specific Ts to create a Matcher<T> from anything(). I could list
all possible types (the ones that DynTypedNode supports) and merge them, but it
seemed to me that a reimplementation of it would be simpler.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D794
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
