aaron.ballman added a comment. In D56444#1350849 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1350849>, @JonasToth wrote:
> In D56444#1350746 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444#1350746>, @sammccall wrote: > > > @klimek: would it be better to preserve the odd behavior of the > > `functionDecl()` matcher, and add a new `functionOrLambdaDecl()`? It seems > > too surprising to me. > > > We can change the clang-tidy check as well. I think lambdas should be > considered functionDecls, shouldnt they? WDYT @aaron.ballman ? I think it depends on whether we want the AST matchers to match what the user wrote (syntax) or how the program behaves (semantics). If the user writes a lambda, they did not syntactically write a function declaration and so it makes sense for `functionDecl()` to not match. However, the semantics of a lambda are that they act as a functor (in effect) which includes a class declaration, a function declaration for the function call operator, conversion operators, etc and so it does make sense for users to want to match those semantic components. Given that, I kind of think we should have functionDecl() match only functions, and give users some other way to match the semantic declarations in a consistent manner. Alternatively, we could decide semantics are what we want to match (because it's what the AST encodes) and instead we give users a way to request to only match syntax. It's always bothered me that tools like clang-query have behavior like this around lambdas, given: int main() { auto l = [](){}; } you get behavior like: clang-query> m cxxRecordDecl() Match #1: 1 match. clang-query> > Should still be fixed for 8.0 (probably with this patch). The refactoring is > more realistic to land in 9.0 i guess? 9.0, IMO. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56444 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
