rturrado wrote:
> I don't believe this is a good change sorry - it's a relatively large
> abstraction layer to "simplify" maybe two actual expressions.
>
> If we really wanted to do something here I would probably just replace the
> optional<> with
>
> ```c++
> bool IsArraySizeDependent = false;
> bool ... = false;
> if (ArraySize) {
> set all the "there is an array size" variables as appropriate
> }
> ```
>
> It seems the main concern is the compound conditions, which is consistent
> with what other code does, but I would prefer to reduce that in general.
>
> But the issue here is not made better with an abstraction (the better option
> would be actual language support for optional in c++)
>
> I've marked as "request changes" but I think this is probably the wrong tack,
> and I'm not sure the problem with new/delete Sema is this bit. There's so
> much more that is so much worse.
>
> While not an option for clang any time soon, I have wondered if reflection
> could be used in a way to make this kind of thing more expensive.
Many thanks for the thorough review. And from my side, same comments I did to
@tbaederr. You're very right that this current code is overkill. I will explore
the variant solution.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/186617
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
