erichkeane added a comment. In D134334#3827895 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134334#3827895>, @shafik wrote:
> In D134334#3805590 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134334#3805590>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >> I have no real idea what is going on here, the parser isn't an area where I >> spend much time. Can you ELI5? > > I am going to try but perhaps fail to explain this in more detail and more > clearly. > > IIUC we are trying to error recover, we get to > > // Try to resolve the name. If it doesn't exist, assume it was > // intended to name a type and keep disambiguating. > switch (TryAnnotateName()) { > > At this point we know the current token is `::` and the next token is an > identifier. We are trying to annotate the name and it could be a C++17 class > template argument deduction case: > https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/class_template_argument_deduction > > If we annotate it we should not be left with current token as `::` and the > next token as an identifier, this is what the assert verifies here: > > // Annotated it, check again. > assert(Tok.isNot(tok::annot_cxxscope) || > NextToken().isNot(tok::identifier)); > > So the line I modified says we should only break if we actually annotated and > therefore the next token IS NOT an identifier b/c we would have advanced. In that case: 1- could you document that? 2- is there some level of more-clear check you could do? Someting like "if (NextToken().is(tok::annotateTok)"? 3- Should TryAnnotateTypeOrScopeToken give SOME sort of 'I successfully did the thing?' instead? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134334/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134334 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
