Michael137 wrote: > As I pointed out in the original patch, maybe there was a confusion on my > part where I assumed we would have a three valued enum, but the direction > actually would make it four valued, and these would be controlling the > suppression of the keyword in orthogonal places. > > Can you clarify? > > I don't mind bool vs two valued enum, if that's your preference, but the > tying up of two separate conditions into one variable is making the other > patch look awkward.
Actually it is possible to have made it a three-valued enum, but reasoning about it was a bit unclear if someone wasn't very familiar with the details. I think two booleans actually ended up looking clearer, so I did that for now https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/171160 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
