[PATCH] D56851: [ASTMatchers] Adds `CXXMemberCallExpr` matcher `invokedAtType`.

[Aaron Ballman via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

aaron.ballman added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3300
+///   matches `x.m()` and `p->m()`.
+AST_MATCHER_P_OVERLOAD(clang::CXXMemberCallExpr, invokedAtType,
+                       clang::ast_matchers::internal::Matcher<clang::QualType>,
----------------
ymandel wrote:
> ymandel wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > alexfh wrote:
> > > > The name of the matcher doesn't tell me much. I had to carefully read the documentation to understand what is it about. I don't have a name that would raise no questions and wouldn't be too verbose at the same time, but a bit of verbosity wouldn't hurt I guess. How about `objectTypeAsWritten`?
> > > Yeah, I think this would be a better name. Also, having some examples that demonstrate where this behavior differs from `thisPointerType` would be helpful.
> > Agreed that it needs a new name, but I'm having trouble finding one I'm satisfied with.  Here's the full description: "the type of the written implicit object argument".  I base this phrasing on the class CXXMemberCallExpr's terminology.  In `x.f(5)`, `x` is the implicit object argument, whether or not it is also implicitly surrounded by a cast.  That is, "implicit" has two different meanings in this context.
> > 
> > So, with that, how about `writtenObjectType`? It's close to `objectTypeAsWritten` but I'm hoping it makes more clear that the "written" part is the object not the type.
> I've contrasted the behavior with thisPointerType in both of the examples. Do you think this helps or do you want something more explicit?
Here's a totally different direction: `onOrPointsToType()`
```
cxxMemberCallExpr(onOrPointsToType(hasDeclaration(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("Y")))))
```



================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchers.h:3300
+///   matches `x.m()` and `p->m()`.
+AST_MATCHER_P_OVERLOAD(clang::CXXMemberCallExpr, invokedAtType,
+                       clang::ast_matchers::internal::Matcher<clang::QualType>,
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> ymandel wrote:
> > ymandel wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > alexfh wrote:
> > > > > The name of the matcher doesn't tell me much. I had to carefully read the documentation to understand what is it about. I don't have a name that would raise no questions and wouldn't be too verbose at the same time, but a bit of verbosity wouldn't hurt I guess. How about `objectTypeAsWritten`?
> > > > Yeah, I think this would be a better name. Also, having some examples that demonstrate where this behavior differs from `thisPointerType` would be helpful.
> > > Agreed that it needs a new name, but I'm having trouble finding one I'm satisfied with.  Here's the full description: "the type of the written implicit object argument".  I base this phrasing on the class CXXMemberCallExpr's terminology.  In `x.f(5)`, `x` is the implicit object argument, whether or not it is also implicitly surrounded by a cast.  That is, "implicit" has two different meanings in this context.
> > > 
> > > So, with that, how about `writtenObjectType`? It's close to `objectTypeAsWritten` but I'm hoping it makes more clear that the "written" part is the object not the type.
> > I've contrasted the behavior with thisPointerType in both of the examples. Do you think this helps or do you want something more explicit?
> Here's a totally different direction: `onOrPointsToType()`
> ```
> cxxMemberCallExpr(onOrPointsToType(hasDeclaration(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("Y")))))
> ```
> 
I think more explicit would be better. e.g.,
```
cxxMemberCallExpr(invokedAtType(hasDeclaration(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("X")))))
matches 'x.m()' and 'p->m()'.
cxxMemberCallExpr(on(thisPointerType(hasDeclaration(cxxRecordDecl(hasName("X"))))))
matches nothing because the type of 'this' is 'Y' in both cases.
```


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D56851/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D56851