v1nh1shungry added a comment.
@kadircet Thank you for the excellent suggestions! Will dive into it to figure
out the implementations.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/tweaks/RemoveUsingNamespaceTests.cpp:294
+}
+using namespace ns1::ns2;
+using namespace ns1::ns3;
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > v1nh1shungry wrote:
> > > kadircet wrote:
> > > > sorry i am having trouble understanding why we are:
> > > > - only handling user defined literals from inline namespaces and not
> > > > others?
> > > > - producing using directives and not using declarations
> > > > - inserting these at top level rather than where the usage is
> > > The first question:
> > >
> > > Because others have already been handled. Say
> > >
> > > ```
> > > namespace a { inline namespace b { void foobar(); } }
> > > using namespace ^a;
> > > int main() { foobar(); }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > can become
> > >
> > > ```
> > > namespace a { inline namespace b { void foobar(); } }
> > >
> > > int main() { a::foobar(); }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > But user-defined literals just can't add a qualifier, right?
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > The second question:
> > >
> > > Yes, this is a good idea. I didn't realize we can use using-declarations
> > > instead of using-directives.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > The last question:
> > >
> > > Hmm, I think it is cleaner if there are multiple usages. Since we can
> > > only remove the using-directives at the top level, this doesn't hurt
> > > anything. And it is the easiest solution to implement as well :)
> > > Because others have already been handled. Say
> >
> > i was emphasizing on the difference between user defined literals inside
> > inline namespaces, and user defined literals from regular namespaces. not
> > other types of decls inside an inline namespace, eg:
> > ```
> > namespace ns { long double operator"" _o(long double); }
> > ```
> >
> > we should also introduce a using-decl for `_o` despite it not being inside
> > an inline namespace.
> > Hmm, I think it is cleaner if there are multiple usages. Since we can only
> > remove the using-directives at the top level, this doesn't hurt anything.
> > And it is the easiest solution to implement as well :)
>
> right, but introducing these at the top level will have unintended
> consequences (e.g. if this is a header, symbols will all of a sudden be
> visible in all the dependents).
You're right. Sorry for misunderstanding it.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/tweaks/RemoveUsingNamespaceTests.cpp:294
+}
+using namespace ns1::ns2;
+using namespace ns1::ns3;
----------------
v1nh1shungry wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > kadircet wrote:
> > > v1nh1shungry wrote:
> > > > kadircet wrote:
> > > > > sorry i am having trouble understanding why we are:
> > > > > - only handling user defined literals from inline namespaces and not
> > > > > others?
> > > > > - producing using directives and not using declarations
> > > > > - inserting these at top level rather than where the usage is
> > > > The first question:
> > > >
> > > > Because others have already been handled. Say
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > namespace a { inline namespace b { void foobar(); } }
> > > > using namespace ^a;
> > > > int main() { foobar(); }
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > can become
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > namespace a { inline namespace b { void foobar(); } }
> > > >
> > > > int main() { a::foobar(); }
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > But user-defined literals just can't add a qualifier, right?
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > The second question:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, this is a good idea. I didn't realize we can use
> > > > using-declarations instead of using-directives.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > The last question:
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, I think it is cleaner if there are multiple usages. Since we can
> > > > only remove the using-directives at the top level, this doesn't hurt
> > > > anything. And it is the easiest solution to implement as well :)
> > > > Because others have already been handled. Say
> > >
> > > i was emphasizing on the difference between user defined literals inside
> > > inline namespaces, and user defined literals from regular namespaces. not
> > > other types of decls inside an inline namespace, eg:
> > > ```
> > > namespace ns { long double operator"" _o(long double); }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > we should also introduce a using-decl for `_o` despite it not being
> > > inside an inline namespace.
> > > Hmm, I think it is cleaner if there are multiple usages. Since we can
> > > only remove the using-directives at the top level, this doesn't hurt
> > > anything. And it is the easiest solution to implement as well :)
> >
> > right, but introducing these at the top level will have unintended
> > consequences (e.g. if this is a header, symbols will all of a sudden be
> > visible in all the dependents).
> You're right. Sorry for misunderstanding it.
Yes, I agree.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137817/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137817
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
