modocache added a subscriber: modocache. ================ Comment at: bindings/python/clang/cindex.py:1875 @@ -1873,1 +1874,3 @@ + def getElabaratedTypeUnderlyingType(self): + """ ---------------- Awesome, thanks for updating the Python bindings as well!
As with the C function, I believe this is a typo--shouldn't it be `getElaboratedTypeUnderlyingType`? Furthermore, the convention in Python (and in this file) is to use snake_case, so this should probably be `get_elaborated_type_underlying_type`. ================ Comment at: include/clang-c/Index.h:2859 @@ -2859,1 +2858,3 @@ + CXType_MemberPointer = 117, + CXType_Elaborated = 118 }; ---------------- Tangential to this diff, but is there a reason these `CXTypeKind` enum values are undocumented? I can see how many would be familiar to most users, but I don't think "elaborated" is something that many users would immediately recognize. Should these be documented? ================ Comment at: include/clang-c/Index.h:3224 @@ -3222,1 +3223,3 @@ /** + * \brief Return the inner type of elaborated type + * ---------------- nit: Other `\brief` documentation in this file uses periods at the end of sentences. For example, `clang_getArraySize`, the function immediately prior to this newly added function, has the brief `-\brief Return the array size of a constant array.`--notice the trailing period. ================ Comment at: include/clang-c/Index.h:3226 @@ +3225,3 @@ + * + * If a non-elaborated type passed, CXType_Invalid type returned + */ ---------------- nit: Rather than reference the `CXType_Invalid` type directly, most of the other documentation in this file states `"an invalid type is returned."` ================ Comment at: include/clang-c/Index.h:3228 @@ +3227,3 @@ + */ +CXType clang_getElabaratedTypeUnderlyingType(CXType T); + ---------------- I believe this is a typo--shouldn't it be `clang_getElaboratedTypeUnderlyingType`? ================ Comment at: tools/libclang/CXType.cpp:987 @@ +986,3 @@ + if (TP && TP->getTypeClass() == Type::Elaborated) + return MakeCXType(cast<ElaboratedType>(TP)->getNamedType(), GetTU(CT)); + ---------------- The documentation of `getNamedType()` itself states `"Retrieve the type named by the qualified-id."`. As such, would it make sense to call this function `clang_getNamedTypeUnderlyingElaboratedType`, instead of `clang_getElaboratedTypeUnderlyingType`? http://reviews.llvm.org/D11797 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
