NoQ added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D20811#544927, @dcoughlin wrote:
> That said, now that I look at it with 'POSTCONDITION' alone I don't think it
> is clear that the provided value describes the return value. What do you
> think about renaming it 'RETURN_VALUE'? Or adding back the RET_VAL I asked
> you about removing before? :-)
Hmm, what about
CONSTRAIN
ARGUMENT_VALUE(0, WithinRange)
RANGE('0', '9')
RANGE('A', 'Z')
RANGE('a', 'z')
END_ARGUMENT_VALUE
RETURN_VALUE(OutOfRange)
VALUE(0)
END_RETURN_VALUE
END_CONSTRAIN
?
Something i don't like here is that the word "value" is overloaded. Maybe
rename the inner `VALUE` back to `POINT`?
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D20811#544927, @dcoughlin wrote:
> Also: do you think CONDITION_KIND is needed? in PRECONDITION? Or can the bare
> kind be used like in POSTCONDITION?
I agree that it's ok to use the bare kind, because it's quite self-explanatory.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D20811
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
