[llvm-dev] [RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?

David Chisnall via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Apr 29 02:37:32 PDT 2019

On 22/04/2019 15:15, Don Hinton via llvm-dev wrote:
> Although there were a few no votes, it looks like there's a consensus 
> for adding a `isa_and_nonnull` type operator.  While there were some who 
> preferred `isa_nonnull`, it wasn't overwhelming, and since 
> `isa_and_nonnull` is already committed, I'm going to leave it as 
> `isa_and_nonnull` for the time being.

Maybe I missed something, but it looked to me as if the consensus was 
that `isa_and_some_words<T>(foo)` imposed a higher cognitive load on the 
reader than `foo && isa<T>(foo)`, as well as being more to type in most 
cases, so wasn't worth adding.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list