[PATCH] D39332: [clang-refactor] Introduce a new rename rule for qualified symbols

[Sam McCall via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

sammccall added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lib/Tooling/Refactoring/Rename/RenamingAction.cpp:101
+                              std::string NewQualifiedName) {
+  return QualifiedRenameRule(std::move(OldQualifiedName),
+                             std::move(NewQualifiedName));
----------------
hokein wrote:
> arphaman wrote:
> > ioeric wrote:
> > > hokein wrote:
> > > > arphaman wrote:
> > > > > It might be better to find the declaration (and report error if needed) during in initiation, and then pass the `ND` to the class. Maybe then both `RenameOccurrences` and `QualifiedRenameRule` could subclass from one base class that actually does just this:
> > > > > 
> > > > > ``` 
> > > > > auto USRs = getUSRsForDeclaration(ND, Context.getASTContext());
> > > > >   assert(!USRs.empty());
> > > > >   return tooling::createRenameAtomicChanges(
> > > > >       USRs, NewQualifiedName, Context.getASTContext().getTranslationUnitDecl());
> > > > > ```
> > > > Done. Introduced a common interface `USRRenameRule`.
> > > `USRRenameRule` doesn't seem to be a very useful abstraction. I think what Alex proposed is a base class that implements `createSourceReplacements` which could be shared by both `RenameOccurrences` and `QualifiedRenameRule`. Intuitively, un-qualified rename is a special case of qualified rename (maybe?), where namespace is not changed.
> > Yep, I meant that indeed.
> Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. 
> 
> Unfortunately, `RenameOccurrences` and `QualifiedRenameRule` could not share the same `createSourceReplacements` implementation, 
> 
> * Their supported use cases are different. `QualifiedRenameRule` only supports renaming class, function, enums, alias and class members, which doesn't cover all the cases of `RenameOccurrences` (like renaming local variable in function body).
> 
> * we have separated implementations in the code base(`createRenameAtomicChanges` for qualified rename, `createRenameReplacements` for un-qualified rename). The implementation of qualified rename does more things, including calculating the shortest prefix qualifiers, getting correct range of replacement.  
> 
> 
That makes sense (I think), but then we should remove  `USRRenameRule` again if we're not actually reusing anything.

(And ideally we can hide any such future reuse as functions in the cc file, rather than a class hierarchy exposed in the header)


https://reviews.llvm.org/D39332