vsavchenko added a comment. In D92039#2414314 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D92039#2414314>, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> Probably irrelevant comment from the C++ world: If I needed this concept in > C++, I'd probably piggyback on the existing semantic analysis of `std::move`: > I'd design a `class OnceCallable` with an `operator() &&` that both called > and nulled-out its object parameter, and then call it like > `std::move(myCallback)()`. Then if I ever tried to call it a second time, the > static analyzer would (hopefully) complain that I was accessing a moved-from > `myCallback`. But you want this for existing APIs that take the built-in > block type, so never mind. :) That's neat! But yeah, it's designed for existing Obj-C APIs. However, I do want to add this attribute for C++, but it's way more things to support (lambda, call operators, pointers to member functions and so on). > Probably irrelevant scope creep: Is it worth trying to support the > possibility that someone might want to pass both a `successHandler` and a > `failureHandler`, with the invariant that we'd make //exactly one call to one > of them// (but never call both)? Is that just not a thing that ever happens > in NSWhatever? This is a somewhat usual thing, actually. However, the naming convention is pretty strong, so parameter in `addSuccessHandler` and `addFailureHandler` won't be named `completionHandler`. In this case, the analysis won't consider those as **calls**, but rather as **escapes** and won't report when it sees two of those. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92039/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92039 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
