[cfe-commits] [possible patches] specific/filtered_decl_iterator aren't iterators

[Richard Smith]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:12 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> [oops, meant to move this to cfe-commits in the process]
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, in the interests of demonstration I've implemented a basic pass
> > at both options. I wouldn't mind someone signing off on one of these
> > two - the current state isn't really viable so far as I can see, so
> > it's one or the other. I personally tend towards the "reference"
> > version (& in the ref_further you can see I got bored & pushed
> > references further down through a few other APIs that don't need the
> > optionality (nullness) of pointers anyway) but I'm not terribly fussed
> > either way.
>

specific_iter_ref.diff LGTM.

I'm less convinced by specific_iter_ref_further.diff: it introduces a lot
of churn into the svn history, and since we don't consistently treat
pointer arguments as nullable, I'm not sure it buys us much.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120429/40cc2ca6/attachment.html>