[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Improve maintainability and readability for ValueObject methods (PR #75865)

[Pete Lawrence via lldb-commits]

================
@@ -1777,30 +1783,31 @@ static const char *SkipLeadingExpressionPathSeparators(const char *expression) {
 ValueObjectSP
 ValueObject::GetSyntheticExpressionPathChild(const char *expression,
                                              bool can_create) {
-  ValueObjectSP synthetic_child_sp;
   ConstString name_const_string(expression);
   // Check if we have already created a synthetic array member in this valid
   // object. If we have we will re-use it.
-  synthetic_child_sp = GetSyntheticChild(name_const_string);
-  if (!synthetic_child_sp) {
-    // We haven't made a synthetic array member for expression yet, so lets
-    // make one and cache it for any future reference.
-    synthetic_child_sp = GetValueForExpressionPath(
-        expression, nullptr, nullptr,
-        GetValueForExpressionPathOptions().SetSyntheticChildrenTraversal(
-            GetValueForExpressionPathOptions::SyntheticChildrenTraversal::
-                None));
-
-    // Cache the value if we got one back...
-    if (synthetic_child_sp.get()) {
-      // FIXME: this causes a "real" child to end up with its name changed to
-      // the contents of expression
-      AddSyntheticChild(name_const_string, synthetic_child_sp.get());
-      synthetic_child_sp->SetName(
-          ConstString(SkipLeadingExpressionPathSeparators(expression)));
-    }
-  }
-  return synthetic_child_sp;
+  if (auto existing_synthetic_child = GetSyntheticChild(name_const_string))
+    return existing_synthetic_child;
+
+  // We haven't made a synthetic array member for expression yet, so lets
+  // make one and cache it for any future reference.
+  auto path_options = GetValueForExpressionPathOptions();
+  auto traversal_none =
----------------
PortalPete wrote:

All great points that I'm going to add to my personal coding style guidelines going forward!

Back to inline for this little one, but I regret nothing in trying it multi-line way because I was hoping someone would provide:
*  A preference against it (because most groups do) and …
* Reasoning behind it that I could use again here and elsewhere (which most groups don't)

Kudos for providing both! 🙂

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75865