erichkeane added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp:5592
+bool Parser::isConstructorDeclarator(bool IsUnqualified, bool DeductionGuide,
+ bool IsFriend) {
TentativeParsingAction TPA(*this);
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> shafik wrote:
> > Instead of adding yet another `bool` flag maybe we can consider using
> > something like `enum isFriend : bool {No, Yes}`.
> >
> > I am sure @aaron.ballman will want to chime in here as well.
> Heh, so this is where I get worried about the scalability of using enums for
> these. We really want to use three different enums here, but do we really
> want to *add* three different enums? I'm unconvinced.
>
> However, if we can come up with some template magic to allow for named bool
> parameters as a generic interface, that would be valuable to use.
I prefer enums over bools TBH, even if we end up with a million of then
somewhere.
That said, what about:
https://godbolt.org/z/Kz6jdjobj
```
template<typename SpecificThing>
class Is {
Is(bool v) : value(v){}
public:
bool value;
static const Is Yes() { return Is{true};}
static const Is No() { return Is{false};}
operator bool() { return value; }
};
class Friend{}; // #1
void foo(Is<Friend> f) {
if (f) {
///...
}
}
void baz() {
foo(Is<Friend>::Yes());
}
```
Adding a 'new' thing is as simple as just adding #1 for anything we care about.
We might want to put them in a namespace of some sort, but perhaps not awful?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53847/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53847
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
