dblaikie added a comment. >>> So we might print it with a syntax as if the class was a simple pod type, >>> even though that might produce a completely different result if used in >>> practice. >>> I don't think we can do much better without having the actual expression >>> used. >>> >>> That might be a point in favor of the designated-initializer style with the >>> field names, that should never produce the wrong result if copy-pasted back >>> to code. >> >> Oh, yeah, I hadn't considered that. :/ that is awkward & something I would >> certainly place some value in avoiding (was one of the issues I was >> motivated by in the earlier discussion, that it'd be useful if we produced >> an identifier that also happened to be valid code - but I wasn't considering >> the case where we might produce something valid-but-incorrect, just valid >> being better than invalid - but yeah, invalid being better than >> valid-but-incorrect). > > Yeah, I would place value in avoiding that outcome as well. Also, the point > by @mizvekov that the types may be internal types is kind of compelling to me > as well; I was thinking that the types involved are most often going to be > ones users are aware of, but that's certainly not true for highly generic > code like STL implementations. > > In the interests of getting this review unstuck, I think we should 1) remove > the printing policy option (which should address the concerns from @dblaikie > about use of that policy for introspection purposes); the policy is something > that @DoDoENT can carry in their downstream, 2) keep the changes in > TemplateBase.cpp and drop the changes from APValue.cpp. > > That gives us an incremental improvement over what the status quo is, and we > can debate other improvements (if we can think of any we'd like to make) > separately. Is everyone comfortable with this?
This would have the effect of implementing (2) from here ( https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453#3869610 )? I'm good with that as an incremental improvement. 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
