ymandel added a comment. In D88275#2305989 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88275#2305989>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D88275#2303283 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88275#2303283>, @ymandel wrote: > >>> I'm not concerned about the basic idea behind the proposed matcher, I'm >>> only worried we're making AST matching more confusing by having two >>> different ways of inconsistently accomplishing the same-ish thing. >> >> Aaron, I appreciate this concern, but I would argue that this matcher isn't >> making things any worse. We already have the various `ignoringImplicit` >> matchers, and this new one simply parallels those, but for parents. So, it >> is in some sense "completing" an existing API, which together is an >> alternative to `traverse`. > > I'm not certain I agree with that reasoning because you can extend it to > literally any match that may interact with implicit nodes, which is the whole > point to the spelled in source traversal mode. I'm not certain it's a good > design for us to continue to add one-off ways to ignore implicit nodes. I appreciate your point, but I'm personally inclined to allow progress while we figure these larger issues out. That said, I'm in no rush and would like a solution that we're both happy with. How do you propose we proceed, especially given that `traverse` does not currently support this case? It seems that progress is in part blocked on hearing back from steveire, but it's been over a week since you added him to the review thread. Is there some other way to ping him? Thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88275/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88275 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
