ebevhan added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53738#1278078, @rjmccall wrote:
> I don't think we should add *types* just for this, but if you need to make a > different kind of `BinaryOperator` that represents that the semantics aren't > quite the same (the same way that the compound assignments have their own > subclass), that seems natural to me. I don't know if adding a new operator kind was what I had in mind. The operator hasn't changed, it's still a normal binary operator. Compound assignments are their own operator with its own syntax; it doesn't really strike me as the same thing. The important difference would be that we separate the semantics of performing the conversion and the operation. I understand that adding a new type could be a bit more involved than baking the conversion into the operator, but I really do not enjoy seeing so much implicit, implementation-specific logic encapsulated in the same AST element. Anyone who wants to look at BinaryOperators with fixed-point types will need to know all of the details of how the finding the common type and conversion is done, rather than simply "it does an addition". Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D53738 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
