martinboehme wrote: > Clearly, this is a matter of taste, so I would defer to your opinion, since > you are the primary maintainer of this code. But, personally, I prefer this > style since it makes clear that the body of the function is a single case > analysis, which is not obvious from the series of if statements. It's > unfortunate that the enum syntax is so bulky (the need for `Stmt::` and the > `Class` suffix). The casts don't bother me (well, any more than C++'s general > lack of built-in datatype and pattern matching support bother me :)).
I think maybe I'm coming round to your point of view (or, at least, I no longer clearly believe that the existing version is better). I'm making this a non-draft PR and will add @Xazax-hun for an additional opinion. I have some other PRs in flight though that also touch `PropagateResultObject()`, and my plan is to land those first. In the meantime, I think the direction of this PR is clear though, so I think it makes sense to review. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88865 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
