ioeric added inline comments.
================
Comment at: change-namespace/ChangeNamespace.cpp:296
+ assert(!NsSplitted.empty());
+ for (auto I = NsSplitted.begin() + 1, E = NsSplitted.end(); I != E; ++I) {
+ if (*I == SymbolSplitted.front())
----------------
hokein wrote:
> ioeric wrote:
> > hokein wrote:
> > > Why skipping the first element? And use `is_contained` instead?
> > See newly added comments for reasoning.
> I see. This sounds the `conflictInNamespace` is too coupled with caller
> because it relies on "it equals to the symbol's outermost namespace and the
> symbol name would have been shortened" assumption. It is not straightforward
> especially for readers who read the code at the first time. So I'd like to
> search from 0 (and this operation is trivial).
This is also for correctness since it is really not a conflict when symbol and
namespace has the same outer-most namespace. I could've dropped "the symbol
name would have been shortened" part.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30493
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
