================
@@ -17658,21 +17637,20 @@ void Sema::DiagnoseStaticAssertDetails(const Expr *E)
{
Expr::EvalResult Result;
SmallString<12> ValueString;
bool Print;
- } DiagSide[2] = {{LHS, Expr::EvalResult(), {}, false},
- {RHS, Expr::EvalResult(), {}, false}};
- for (unsigned I = 0; I < 2; I++) {
- const Expr *Side = DiagSide[I].Cond;
+ } DiagSides[2] = {{LHS, Expr::EvalResult(), {}, false},
+ {RHS, Expr::EvalResult(), {}, false}};
+ for (auto &DiagSide : DiagSides) {
----------------
davidstone wrote:
I don't think that would improve things. The names of the structured bindings
would just match the name of the fields in the struct (in other words, I don't
have a better local name than the name I'd get naturally). This means that
structured bindings introduces the risk of naming them differently (leading to
a bug caused by accidentally transposing the names) as well as a risk of
someone updating the names in one place but not the other, causing them to go
out of sync.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/169938
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
