labath wrote: > single interface to traverse the AST tree:
That's the part that would change in this setup. Instead of one API, we'd have two: `EvaluateValueNode()` and `EvaluateScalarNode()`, and we'd have two node hierarchies: ValueNode and ScalarNode. MemberOfNode would be a ValueNode because it produces a value object. AddNode would be a ScalarNode because it produces a number. ArraySubscriptNode would be a ValueNode (the result is a value), but its `index` member would be a ScalarNode, because we need to use it for indexing. The correct types would be ensured when parsing, possibly with the addition of the "rvalue" nodes. `a[1]` would be parsed as `Subscript(Identifier(a), Scalar(1))`, while `a[b]` would turn into `Subscript(Identifier(a), RValue(Identifier(b)))`. `a[b+1]` would be something like `Subscript(Identifier(a), Add(RValue(Identifier(b)), Scalar(1)))`. The evaluator would have access to the right types, so it could invoke the right function. This has nothing to do with the types of the variables, its about the types (kinds) of AST nodes. I'm not saying you have to do this, but I find the idea of not constantly wrapping and unwrapping scalars appealing. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/147064 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
