aaron.ballman added inline comments. ================ Comment at: include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:2855 @@ +2854,3 @@ +/// bar(t); +/// } +/// \endcode ---------------- alexfh wrote: > mboehme wrote: > > > The documentation doesn't describe what the matcher does (can you please > > > clarify the docs?). > > > > I've rephrased the description of the matcher -- is it clearer now? > > > > > The implementation suggests that this is looking to see if the given decl > > > exists in the overload expression set, which makes me wonder why this > > > isn't implemented on the hasDeclaration() traversal matcher rather than > > > adding a new matcher name? > > > > As klimek notes, the difference is that hasDeclaration() is currently used > > only for nodes that have exactly one associated declaration. > > > > My proposal would be to stay with canReferToDecl -- thoughts? > +1 to `canReferToDecl` `canReferToDecl` doesn't make it any more clear that there could be multiple candidates, and I find its usage to read really strangely. However, it is a good point about `hasDeclaration` usage being singular currently. My preference is for `hasAnyDeclaration`, and the precedence is `hasAnyName`, `hasAnyConstructorInitializer`, `hasAnyArgument`, etc.
The documentation does read better now, thank you! https://reviews.llvm.org/D23004 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
