On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:47 PM Gabor Marton via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> martong added a comment.
>
> Ping.
>
> Manuel, I still don't see how could we apply `match(anyOf(node),
> hasDescendant(node))` to the problem of general subtree traversal.
> (I'd like to have support
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:02 AM Stephen Kelly via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> steveire added a comment.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49840#1176405, @klimek wrote:
>
> > Usually we use match(anyOf(node), hasDescendant(node)). Or did I
> misunderstand what you want?
>
>
> S
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:43 PM Gabor Marton via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> martong added a comment.
>
> > Finder.match also has an overload that takes the node. Can you wrap
> "Pattern" above in the anyOf(hasDescendant(...), ...) and match on the node
> instead of the full
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:39 AM Gabor Marton via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> martong added a comment.
>
> > MatchFinder::match allows you to match a node. Wrapping your matcher
> code with:
> > auto m = ;
> > ast_matchers::match(anyOf(m, hashDescendant(m)), node, context);
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:44 PM Gabor Marton via Phabricator <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> martong added a comment.
>
> > Usually we use match(anyOf(node), hasDescendant(node)). Or did I
> misunderstand what you want?
>
> My understanding is that, the free function template `match` uses
>
