jcking1034 added a comment.
@aaron.ballman for the purpose of these matchers, what @ymandel said is correct
- the goal is to allow `LambdaCapture`s themselves to be bindable.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:4629-4630
+/// matches `[x](){}`.
+AST_MATCHER_P(LambdaCapture, refersToVarDecl, internal::Matcher<VarDecl>,
+ InnerMatcher) {
+ auto *capturedVar = Node.getCapturedVar();
----------------
ymandel wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > The name here is a bit unclear -- whether it is the matcher matching `int
> > x;` or the `x` from the capture is not clear from the name. The comment
> > suggests it's matching `x` from the capture, but I think it's actually
> > matching the `int x;` variable declaration.
> >
> > Being clear on what's matched here is important when we think about
> > initializers:
> > ```
> > void foo() {
> > int x = 12;
> > auto f = [x = 100](){};
> > }
> > ```
> > and
> > ```
> > lambdaExpr(hasAnyCapture(lambdaCapture(refersToVarDecl(hasName("x"),
> > hasInitializer(integerLiteral(equals(100))))))
> > ```
> > Would you expect this to match? (This might be a good test case to add.)
> In a similar vein, do we want a separate matcher on the name of the capture
> itself? e.g. an overload of `hasName`? And what about matchers for the
> initializers? Those don't have to land in this patch, but do you think those
> would be doable?
I would expect @aaron.ballman's initializer example to match, and I added a
similar test case to the one described. I think that if a capture does not
have an initializer, then `refersToVarDecl` will match on the variable
declaration before the lambda. However, if a capture does have an initializer,
that initializer itself seems to be represented as a `VarDecl` in the AST,
which is the `VarDecl` that gets matched.
For that reason, I think we may not need to have a separate matcher on the name
of the capture itself. Additionally, since captures with/without initializers
are both represented the same way, there may not be a good way to distinguish
between them, so matchers for initializers may not be possible.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112491/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112491
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
