ymandel added a comment.
In D69625#1729634 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69625#1729634>, @gribozavr2 wrote:
> I fully agree about passing a Stencil to `access`. However whether to call
> `makeStencil` inside is an interesting question. On one hand, such implicit
> conversions increase the convenience. On the other, they increase the API
> surface (more possible argument types), and makes the API harder to read.
> What does `access` take? "I don't know, some T" vs. "A Stencil".
>
> I think that implicit conversions for `cat` arguments can be justified
> because it seems like `cat` will be used frequently; however, `access` won't
> be as frequently called.
>
> What do you think?
This seems reasonable, particularly the problem caused by using a template. I'd
consider having three explicit overloads, but this doesn't scale in general
(especially once you have a combinator with 2+ Stencil args).
Which idiom do you think we should encourage, then, for text and
range-selectors -- the named combinator or the single-argument `cat`? That is
access("object", text("field"))
access("object", selection(member("e")))
versus
access("object", cat("field"))
access("object", cat(member("e")))
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69625/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69625
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
