ymandel added a comment. In D69184#1718427 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69184#1718427>, @ymandel wrote:
> In D69184#1715256 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69184#1715256>, @gribozavr wrote: > > > What are the use cases for non-text values? > > > > I like the name `text` much better... If the name conflict is the issue, I > > think you could rename it to `toText` -- it would even read more fluently > > `change(toText("abc"))`, also making it obvious that we are not changing > > *the text abc*, but we are changing the code to say "abc". > > > Another example use is: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang/include/clang/Tooling/Transformer/RangeSelector.h#L29-L32, > although I must admit that I hadn't thought of that before this patch. It's > just the natural generalization (it's actually the K combinator form SKI > fame). So, I haven't thought about other examples -- the primary motivation > was just the naming. > > That said, I'm not sure about `toText` because I consider the "to" as > implicit in `change`. In fact, it might be a good idea to rename `change` to > `changeTo` (WDYT?). What about any of `asText`, `textMsg`, `textMessage`? (I > realize the unfortunate pun in the last two, but not sure that's worth caring > about). An alternative, is not to introduce a new combinator at all, and just use `Stencil`s: change(cat("abc")) Or, add `operator()` to `StencilPart` and use those directly: change(text("abc")) Given that `Stencil` and `Transformer` are bundled in the same library, is there any strong reason for a client to avoid a dependency on `Stencil`? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69184/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69184 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
