ldionne added a comment.
In D91311#2398526 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311#2398526>, @rsmith wrote:
> [...]
Thanks for your detailed explanation. I did not understand the philosophy of
the attribute, and it's now clear to me that it shouldn't be tied to the
typedef, indeed.
> There's another design approach we could follow, that would keep the
> attribute on the template but avoid the awkwardness of requiring the typedef
> to appear first: we could completely divorce this feature from typedefs.
> Instead, we could say the attribute is of the form `preferred_name(type,
> "name")`, where `type` is a specialization of the type to which the attribute
> is attached, and `"name"` is a name used in diagnostics when referring to
> that type, which is printed as if it's a member of the enclosing namespace
> (but there'd be no enforcement that such a member actually exists and
> declares the corresponding type). What do you think?
I think this is pretty interesting, actually. While it does seem a bit more
loosey-goosey in terms of the type system, I can imagine useful applications of
being able to use arbitrary strings, such as providing better diagnostics for
specific types without having to actually have an associated typedef. Just to
clarify, that would look like this, right?
template<class _CharT, class _Traits>
class [[preferred_name(basic_string_view<char>, "string_view")]]
[[preferred_name(basic_string_view<char8_t>, "u8string_view")]]
[[preferred_name(basic_string_view<char16_t>, "u16string_view")]]
[[preferred_name(basic_string_view<char32_t>, "u32string_view")]]
[[preferred_name(basic_string_view<wchar_t>, "wstring_view")]]
basic_string_view {
...
};
I don't want to ask for something unreasonable.. but I think that's a neat
design that's actually more powerful than the current one. I would be curious
to hear what other people think as well, to see whether I'm the only one
preferring the more free-form approach.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
