arphaman added a comment.
I've committed https://reviews.llvm.org/D38985, so you'd have to rebase
unfortunately. Things are still somewhat unstable :)
================
Comment at: lib/Tooling/Refactoring/Rename/RenamingAction.cpp:154
+
+class LocalQualifiedRename final : public RefactoringAction {
+public:
----------------
hokein wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > As discussed offline, it's not clear why this is a separate Action, rather
> > than a different Rule that's part of the same Action.
> >
> > @arphaman how does the framework answer this question?
> There is a
> [document](https://clang.llvm.org/docs/RefactoringEngine.html#refactoring-action-rules)
> describing it, but still ambiguous.
>
> We also had some questions about `local-rename` from the discussion, need
> @arphaman's input:
>
> * `OccurrenceFinder` is not exposed now, it is merely used in
> `RenameOccurrences`. We think there should be a public interface to the
> clients, like for implementing interactive mode in IDE?
> * Currently the rules defined in the same action must have mutual
> command-line options, otherwise clang-refactor would complain the
> command-line option are being registered more than once. It might be very
> strict for some cases. For example, `-new-name` is most likely being used by
> many rules in `local-rename` action.
>
I think that this should be just a rule in `local-rename`.
So you'd be able to call:
`clang-refactor local-rename -selection=X -new-name=foo`
`clang-refactor local-rename -old-qualified-name=bar -new-name=foo`.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39332
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
