ymandel marked 3 inline comments as done. ymandel added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3300 +/// matches `x.m()` and `p->m()`. +AST_MATCHER_P_OVERLOAD(clang::CXXMemberCallExpr, invokedAtType, + clang::ast_matchers::internal::Matcher<clang::QualType>, ---------------- ymandel wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > alexfh wrote: > > > The name of the matcher doesn't tell me much. I had to carefully read the > > > documentation to understand what is it about. I don't have a name that > > > would raise no questions and wouldn't be too verbose at the same time, > > > but a bit of verbosity wouldn't hurt I guess. How about > > > `objectTypeAsWritten`? > > Yeah, I think this would be a better name. Also, having some examples that > > demonstrate where this behavior differs from `thisPointerType` would be > > helpful. > Agreed that it needs a new name, but I'm having trouble finding one I'm > satisfied with. Here's the full description: "the type of the written > implicit object argument". I base this phrasing on the class > CXXMemberCallExpr's terminology. In `x.f(5)`, `x` is the implicit object > argument, whether or not it is also implicitly surrounded by a cast. That > is, "implicit" has two different meanings in this context. > > So, with that, how about `writtenObjectType`? It's close to > `objectTypeAsWritten` but I'm hoping it makes more clear that the "written" > part is the object not the type. I've contrasted the behavior with thisPointerType in both of the examples. Do you think this helps or do you want something more explicit? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56851/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56851 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
