dblaikie added a comment. In D134453#3871458 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453#3871458>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D134453#3871414 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453#3871414>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D134453#3871386 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453#3871386>, @dblaikie >> wrote: >> >>>> In terms of next steps, I think we should try to see if there's a "clear" >>>> path forward in terms of printing the types vs not printing the types. If >>>> we find one, then great, we go that way. But if we don't seem to have a >>>> clear path forward (relatively quickly; I don't think we want to drag this >>>> discussion on for months trying to find the perfect answer), then I think >>>> I'm fine with the patch as-is. It fixes the issue of `t<{}>` (with empty >>>> braces specifically) while retaining the status quo in other areas, but >>>> still exposes useful functionality through the additional printing policy. >>>> Does that sound reasonable? >>> >>> If you reckon (1) is better overall anyway - happy enough to defer to your >>> opinion there and go with that, skip/omit the printing policy. >> >> Okay, thanks for that! I'm still happy to consider alternatives if we can >> think of any, FWIW. >> >>> I think the policy is like adding off-by-default warnings, and supporting a >>> use case (using the string name for reflection when we'd recommend the AST) >>> I don't think we want to encourage/support. >> >> That's a fair point. So if we find no better approach, drop the policy and >> just always print types. > > Yeah - I don't think I have any better ideas that are reasonably within reach > for a newer contributor nor worth holding up fixing the `t1<{}>` bug for. > > Yeah, for type comparisons/fancy template type diffing we could trim things > down if we aren't already(we probably aren't), but that doesn't address the > cases where the name appears alone and not as part of a comparison. And when > there's no particular context, I can't think of any cues we could use to > decide which nested names "matter". > > (rabbit hole/tangent: Arguably what might be more useful to the user might be > a name that's not even usable in C++ - using the member variable names, as > well as the type names, though that'd be even more verbose... like > `t1<t2{.length=3, .width=7}>` - which, I guess, if you had user defined types > for some kind of extra type safety, would get as verbose as > `t1<Shape{Length{.length = 3}, Width{.width = 5}}>` though I would expect > that would be the minority) Correction, apparently that is valid syntax, which is nice: https://godbolt.org/z/xaYYo3fva Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
