<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/06/2020 07:52, Richard Smith
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOfiQq=owwGWiocTadwRgTXqm+Uu_uF1r9g0+vqY6F3Om2NAaw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 13:51, Stephen Kelly via
cfe-dev <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">So, where to from here? <br>
<p>Does the default have to be changed back to AsIs? Does
IgnoreUnlessSpelledInSource have to be removed? Does the
traverse() matcher have to be removed?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I would like to hear the opinions of others on these
questions. I think we've both described our perspectives and
made our cases.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just expanding on my position from earlier in this thread
slightly: to directly address the "where to from here?"
question, I would like us to get back to the state where, <i>in
our default mode, the matcher for AST node X is always
able to match all instances of AST node X</i>. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>With the change I made to the default mode yesterday, this is now
the case.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOfiQq=owwGWiocTadwRgTXqm+Uu_uF1r9g0+vqY6F3Om2NAaw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>And I think it's fine (and probably good) to expose an
easy way to explicitly control whether we automatically look
through implicit nodes or not.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'm interested in continuing this part.<br>
</p>
<p>However, Richard, there seems to be room for interpretation of
what your position is. I have a proposal for where to go from
here. Please indicate whether you support or object to it:</p>
<p>I know of bugs in IgnoreUnlessSpelledInSource and those bugs can
be fixed. I have known about them since before changing the
default, but I thought incorrectly that I would be able to fix
them after changing the default.<br>
</p>
<p>For example template instantations and the compiler-supplied
parts of range based for loops are not "spelled in source" and
should be ignored in that mode.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://godbolt.org/z/x9osE8">https://godbolt.org/z/x9osE8</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://godbolt.org/z/RXGCCB">https://godbolt.org/z/RXGCCB</a><br>
</p>
<p>Your response here is being interpreted by other people to mean I
should not fix those bugs. <br>
</p>
<p>Can you clarify?<br>
</p>
<p>My proposal is that I fix those and similar bugs in
IgnoreUnlessSpelledInSource. That way the mode can prove itself.</p>
<p>Do you support or object to that or neither?</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Stephen.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>