On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Do you have ideas about how to improve the naming? Perhaps change >>>> TYPE_ANONYMOUS_P to TYPE_NO_LINKAGE_NAME? >>> >>> I haven't thought about changing names but TYPE_NO_LINKAGE_NAME >>> seems better than TYPE_ANONYMOUS_P. >> >> Or perhaps TYPE_UNNAMED_P. > > TYPE_UNNAMED_P would work but it wouldn't be a replacement for > TYPE_ANONYMOUS_P. > > It sounds like TYPE_ANONYMOUS_P is the right name and the problem > is that the value it returns isn't accurate until the full context > to which it applies has been seen.
I think you're thinking of ANON_AGGR_TYPE_P, which identifies anonymous structs/unions; TYPE_ANONYMOUS_P identifies unnamed classes. > I wonder if the right solution to this class of problems (which > are probably unavoidable in the front end as the tree is being > constructed), is to design an API that prevents using these > "unreliable" queries until they can return a reliable result. It would be possible to change ANON_AGGR_TYPE_P to require COMPLETE_TYPE_P, but a lot of uses will need to be adjusted to avoid crashing. Jason
