I think clang-format's parser would be a better candidate for code
reuse, but even that might be too much, as we don't need that level of
detail (basically we just need to split the name into function name,
return type and argument list), and we can make a lot of simplifying
assumptions here (e.g.
A random idea: Instead of parsing demangled C++ method names what people
think about writing or reusing a demangler what can gave back both the
demangled name and the parsed name in some form?
My guess is that it would be both more efficient (we already have most of
information during demangling)
Yes, it's a good idea to add cfe-dev.
It is totally possible that I overlooked something and clang can help with
this kind of superficial parsing.
As far as I can see even clang-format does it's own parsing
(UnwrappedLineParser.cpp) and clang-format has very similar need of roughly
understanding o
If there is any way to re-use clang parser for this, it would be
wonderful. Even if it means adding support to clang for whatever you need
in order to make it possible. You mention performance, are you certain
that clang's parser would be unacceptably slow?
+cfe-dev as they may have some more in
