erichkeane accepted this revision.
erichkeane added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Sema/DeclSpec.h:2068
case DeclaratorContext::TrailingReturnVar:
+ case DeclaratorContext::Association:
return false;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> erichkeane wrote:
> > Is this right? According to the comment, this is 'true'if the identifier
> > is optional or required, but the mayOmitIdentifier, where you are returning
> > 'true' says optional or not allowed? Does this make identifier 'not
> > allowed' here?
> I believe this is correct -- associations used to be handled the same as type
> names, and we still want to handle them effectively as type names. The only
> distinction between an association and a type name is whether it can be a
> defining type specifier or not (type name can be, association cannot be).
>
> This is the function that tests whether you can put an identifier after the
> type; e.g., `int a` and I think it's logically consistent. May the identifier
> be omitted? Certainly, it must be. May it have an identifier? Definitely not.
Ok, that sounds right to me as well then. Its a little annoying/confusing I
guess that these two functions combine for a bizarre tri-state:
"Required/Optional/Not-allowed", and the name of `mayOmitIdentifier` isn't
really a good one, since `may I omit` implies the option here...
Either way, not your ball of wax, but thanks for confirming.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126969/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126969
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
