benhamilton added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Format/TokenAnnotator.cpp:155
+ Next->startsSequence(tok::identifier, tok::l_square,
+ tok::numeric_constant, tok::r_square,
+ tok::r_paren, tok::l_paren))) {
----------------
djasper wrote:
> benhamilton wrote:
> > djasper wrote:
> > > This seems suspect. Does it have to be a numeric_constant?
> > Probably not, any constexpr would do, I suspect. What's the best way to
> > parse that?
> I think this is the same answer for both of your questions. If what you are
> trying to prevent "FOO(^)" to be parsed as a block, wouldn't it be enough to
> look for whether there is a "(" after the ")" or even only after "(^)",
> everything else is already correct IIUC? That would get you out of need to
> parse the specifics here, which will be hard.
>
> Or thinking about it another way. Previously, every "(^" would be parsed as
> an ObjC block. There seems to be only a really rare corner case in which it
> isn't (macros). Thus, I'd just try to detect that corner case. Instead you
> are completely inverting the defaults (defaulting to "^" is not a block) and
> then try to exactly parse ObjC where there might be many cases and edge cases
> that you won't even think of now.
Hmm. Well, it's not just `FOO(^);` that isn't a block:
```
#define FOO(X) operator X
SomeType FOO(^)(int x, const SomeType& y) { ... }
```
Obviously we can't get this perfect without a pre-processor, but it seems like
our best bet is to only assign mark `TT_ObjCBlockLParen` when we are sure the
syntax is a valid block type or block variable.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43906
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
