On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Dodji Seketeli <do...@redhat.com> wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> writes: > > G> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 12/21/2012 07:35 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: >>>> >>>> else if (TREE_TYPE (t) >>>> && INTEGRAL_OR_ENUMERATION_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t)) >>>> - && !TREE_CONSTANT (t)) >>>> + && !TREE_CONSTANT (t) >>>> + /* Class template and alias template arguments should be OK. >>>> */ >>>> + && !DECL_TYPE_TEMPLATE_P (t)) >>> >>> >>> Instead, let's add a previous else if to catch template template arguments >>> (and do nothing) so that when we hit this else if, we know we're dealing >>> with a non-type argument. >> >> Thanks; that would make the logic clearer. I would suggest that we >> abstract this series of conjunction into a separate (static inline) >> function, e.g. nontype_argument_p. > > These conjunctions represents a non-type argument only if they are > satisfied /and/ the previous 'if' branches are not taken. So just > putting the conjunctions in e.g, nontype_argument_p could be seen as > confusion too, IMHO. > > Could we just consider that the patch + comment of my earlier message and the > comment of these conjunctions > > /* A non-type argument of integral or enumerated type must be a > constant. */ > > should make this less confusing?
I am not sure the suggestion would be confusing, but I am inclined to do as you suggest. I do believe though that we should aim for reducing the size of most of our functions; there are many places where we replicate verbatim logics that should be abstracted into separate functions, increasing reuse and coherence, and decreasing likelihood of bugs Thanks! -- Gaby
