vgvassilev wrote:

> Wouldn't isExplicitSpecializationOrInstantiation be a stronger guarantee than 
> isExplicitSpecialization, such that it would exclude a superset of what is 
> excluded by isExplicitSpecialization? If I did not misunderstand their source 
> code.

I wanted to filter out instantiations.

> I generally don't think we can depend on this kind of behavior, especially as 
> it is far too difficult to control for the kind of consistency we want.

I think we could make the template specializations consistent so that you at 
least cure the symptom of your problem.

> My assumption was that this might be an improvement for other use-cases too, 
> but I failed to see the "give me code that compiles" use case.

Understood. That's a pretty strong requirement for this case and we cannot 
really make a compromise. The idea is to offer an API which gives the user how 
would they reach certain AST node from within the global scope if they had to 
type it.

> The only thing that comes to mind would be to condition the behavior to be 
> there or not. Similar to how we have WighGlobalNsPrefix we might have another 
> boolean or similar, so that the default behavior remains the same but it can 
> be conditioned to avoid this case.

I would avoid doing that. In fact, I still do not see why the proposed solution 
would not work. If it solves the minimal case that you provided in the 
description of this PR, I am afraid that there is some bit from the Qt setup 
that we do not understand.
cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to