curdeius added a comment.
I like these changes.
I have mixed feelings about `isCpp()` & co.
As @MyDeveloperDay said, I'd like it mean C++ only. I find it confusing that it
means C++ or ObjC (even if the latter is a superset of the former). I'd rather
see it spelt as `isCppOrObjC()` even if it's verbose but at least removes all
confusion IMO.
================
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(); }
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> 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.
I'd rather go for coherence with `LanguageKind` options and spell it `isObjC()`.
================
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; }
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> 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.
Ditto, maybe `isProto` and `isTextProto`?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80079/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80079
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
