lukasza added inline comments.
================
Comment at: unittests/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchersTraversalTest.cpp:253
+ matches("struct A {}; using B = A; B b;",
+ varDecl(hasType(hasUnqualifiedDesugaredType(recordType())))));
+}
----------------
# deep testing suggestion
If we do end up landing the implementation of hasUnqualifiedDesugaredType from
this CL, then I think it might be good to tweak the test so that it verifies
that the matching here is "deep" (i.e. that the matcher doesn't just strip a
single level of sugar).
matches("struct A {}; using B = A; using C = B; C c;", ...
# deep-vs-shallow-vs-everythingInBetween
At one point, when discussing the old implementation of hasDeclaration (before
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27104) we were wondering whether it should match for
all the cases below:
std::string input = "struct A {}; using B = A; using C = B; using D = C; D
d;";
EXPECT_TRUE(matches(input,
varDecl(...something-hasDeclaration-something...(typeAliasDecl(hasName("B"))))));
EXPECT_TRUE(matches(input,
varDecl(...something-hasDeclaration-something...(typeAliasDecl(hasName("C"))))));
EXPECT_TRUE(matches(input,
varDecl(...something-hasDeclaration-something...(typeAliasDecl(hasName("D"))))));
This is not something I want or care about myself, but I wanted to check if the
above is something to think about. For example - maybe exposing a
singleStepDesugarsTo(...) matcher is better (because it can be used to build
the hasUnqualifiedDesugaredType).
As I said - this is not very important to me (I only care about full desugaring
all the way to a tag type), but it might be something to ponder before
committing to the current implementation of hasUnqualifiedDesugaredType.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27207
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
