steveire added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lib/ASTMatchers/Dynamic/Registry.cpp:624 + "hasAnyDeclaration", + "hasAnyName", + "hasAnyParameter", ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > steveire wrote: > > sbenza wrote: > > > I'm not sure what goes in this list. > > > `hasAnyName` is here but not `hasName`. > > > What is ambiguous about `hasAnyName`? > > I have a follow-up which adds output showing that `hasName` can be used. See > > > > http://ec2-52-14-16-249.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com:10240/z/_X9mnw > > > > If there was an entry there for `hasAnyName`, what would go in it? > > If there was an entry there for hasAnyName, what would go in it? > > Presumably the same as `hasName()`, though for the purposes of that list, I > could see why it would be a bit odd to list it. > > It almost feels like this isn't about ambiguity of the matchers (at least, > not always) so much as it is about sensibility within a "the following are > related matchers" list due to there being many different ways for matchers to > relate. For instance, a related matcher could be > `functionDecl(hasAnyParameter(anything()))`, but you might not want to list > that because it's an open-ended problem to generate all such cases and it has > very limited value to list them. Is that a better way for me to think about > this? > it is about sensibility ... Is that a better way for me to think about this? Yes. The list attempts to exclude things that don't make sense to show for `matcher` output. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D54404 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
