ymandel added a comment. In D87527#2271059 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87527#2271059>, @baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> We must decide about the namings. If we want to be in sync with the methods > in `FunctionDecl`, then we keep `hasBody()` as is, but remove the template > specialization, and create a new `doesThisDeclarationHaveABody()`. However, > this involves changing existing checks. The other solution is to fix > `hasBody()` like in this patch, and find a new name for the other behavior, > such as e.g. `hasBodySomewhere()` or something similar. Agreed. I think we should stick with your approach, since it involves fewer changes and is consistent with the AST API itself. As for naming, `hasBodySomewhere()` works, but other options: `hasSomeBody`, `hasAnyBody`, `hasBodyForSomeDecl`. FWIW, I checked our codebase and we definitely have a handful of uses that rely on current behavior. So, I think its important to add the new matcher before we commit this change. > The comments in the header are really poorly written, but there is the word > //definition// which means that the matcher matches function definitions and > not declarations. This is surely to be rephrased. +1 Thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87527/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87527 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
