ojhunt 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.
Have a quick look at just turning the various checks into a set of bools first
and see what that does to the overall appearance. I'll try to refresh exactly
what it was I didn't like about array size specifically as there's a lot of
clunkiness in this code in general (I really wish I put down more information
at the time)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/186617
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
