[PATCH] Mark lambda closure classes as being implicitly-generated.

[James Dennett]

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:12 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Looks reasonable to me - enough that I'm willing to sign off on it and anyone else can object/discuss in post-commit review.
>
>
> ================
> Comment at: unittests/Tooling/RecursiveASTVisitorTest.cpp:531
> @@ +530,3 @@
> +  bool VisitCXXRecordDecl(CXXRecordDecl* record) {
> +    if (record->isLambda() && !record->isImplicit()) {
> +      SawNonImplicitLambdaClass = true;
> ----------------
> Unnecessary curlies (not sure if that's the local convention here, but not the LLVM convention generally)

Removed.  (There are some others in this file, but meh.)

> & because I'm far too terse, I would, depending on the day, write this as "x |= y" rather than "if (y) x = true". But I don't really claim this is better.

My brain also can't help but try to find The Perfect Way To Write
This, but if you're OK with what's there I think it's down in the
noise.