sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Format/Format.h:1632
+ bool isCppOnly() const { return Language == LK_Cpp; }
+ bool isObjectiveC() const { return Language == LK_ObjC; }
+ bool isCpp() const { return isCppOnly() || isObjectiveC(); }
----------------
Just my 2c - I find the current meaning of isCpp easier to understand, and
would prefer isObjectiveC to mean objective-C/C++. h if it exists.
Reasons:
- this is consistent with LangOptions::CPlusPlus and LangOptions::ObjC
- when checking for C++, also applying these rules to ObjC++ should be the
common/default case, and excluding ObjC++ the special case that justifies more
precise syntax (and honestly, I'd find `isCpp && !isObjC` to carry the clearest
intent in that case). IOW, this seems like it will attract bugs.
> perhaps a better name for isCpp() is isCStyleLanguages()
Clang uses the term "C family languages", and this includes C, C++, ObjC,
ObjC++.
If you really want to avoid the conflict between C++ the boolean language
option and C++ the precise language mode, I'd suggest `isPlusPlus()` and
`isObjective()`. But I think consistency with LangOptions is worth more.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Format/Format.h:1635
bool isCSharp() const { return Language == LK_CSharp; }
+ bool isProtoBuf() const { return Language == LK_Proto; }
+ bool isTableGen() const { return Language == LK_TableGen; }
----------------
These functions that don't *even in principle* do more than compare to an enum
seem like extra indirection that hurts understanding of the code (have to look
up what isObjectiveC() does, or have subtle bugs).
I suspect isCSharp() was added due to a misunderstanding of what isCpp() was
for.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80079/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80079
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
