> On Oct 15, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> rsmith added a comment.
>
> Argyrios, I'd appreciate your thoughts here.
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: tools/libclang/CIndex.cpp:6670-6694
> @@ -6669,1 +6669,27 @@
>
> +bool clang_Cursor_hasLocalStorage(CXCursor C) {
> + if (C.kind != CXCursor_VarDecl) {
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + const Decl *D = getCursorDecl(C);
> + if (const VarDecl *VD = dyn_cast<VarDecl>(D)) {
> + return VD->hasLocalStorage();
> + }
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +bool clang_Cursor_isStaticLocal(CXCursor C) {
> + if (C.kind != CXCursor_VarDecl) {
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + const Decl *D = getCursorDecl(C);
> + if (const VarDecl *VD = dyn_cast<VarDecl>(D)) {
> + return VD->isStaticLocal();
> + }
> +
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> ----------------
> I don't think the names of these are really specific enough for what they do.
> As members of `VarDecl`, they're good enough, but as operations on a general
> `Cursor`, it's less so. For instance, temporary objects in C++ might also
> have local storage or be static locals. Renaming `isStaticLocal` to
> `isStaticLocalVar` would help.
>
> `hasLocalStorage` is not really a very user-friendly name for this
> functionality, even though it currently matches our C++ API (the C API has
> long-term stability guarantees whereas the C++ API does not, so we need to
> take more care when naming C API functions, even though matching the C++ API
> does generally make the C API more user-friendly). `isStaticLocalVar` versus
> `isNonStaticLocalVar` might be better if you don't want to go the enum route.
I agree with Richard, an enum is better. To the enums Richard proposed I’d
suggest adding invalid: { invalid, not local, non-static local, static local }.
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D10834
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
