HazardyKnusperkeks planned changes to this revision.
HazardyKnusperkeks added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:2835-2841
+ // FIXME: We need an annotation on the paren to really know if it is a
+ // function call:
+ // ... foo() && requires ...
+ // or a declaration:
+ // void foo() && requires ...
+ // there is no distinction possible right now. We go for the latter,
+ // because it's more likely to appear in code.
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> I think it's weird that your heuristic parses backward rather than forward. I
> would think that the next token //after// the `requires` keyword tells you
> what it is with pretty high probability:
> `requires requires` — it's a clause
> `requires identifier` — it's a clause
> `requires {` — it's an expression
> `requires (` — unclear, apply further heuristics
>
> Or are those heuristics already present in trunk, and this PR is just dealing
> with the "unclear" case?
That would be so much better, but I can't easily look forward. `Next` is still
`nullptr`, until I call `nextToken()`, but then I'm already moved along.
But this got me thinking, at least for the easy stuff I can just go forward and
don't start on the keyword in `parseRequiresClause()` and
`parseRequiresExpression()`. The paren case is more tricky, but I will try
something.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119138/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119138
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
