martinboehme wrote: > > It's unfortunate that the enum syntax is so bulky (the need for `Stmt::` > > and the `Class` suffix). > > Once we can use C++20, it could get a bit better thanks to > https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/enum#Using-enum-declaration.
Good point, thanks. > > I'm making this a non-draft PR and will add @Xazax-hun for an additional > > opinion. > > I also don't have a strong opinion; I am fine with both styles. That being > said, if C++ gets proper pattern matching in the future, the switch might be > easier to refactor. Thanks for your input! So I think given that you and I are fine with both options and @ymand has a preference for the switch statement, I'll go with the switch statement. In the meantime, I've landed two other PRs that touch `PropagateResultObject()` (#88872 and #88875). I'll integrate those changes in this PR and will ping the review thread once that has happened. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88865 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
