[PATCH] D137909: [Support] Allow complex names for annotation points and ranges via $()

[Sam McCall via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

sammccall added a comment.

This seems pretty nice (I do find `foo$long_word^bar` a bit hard to read). I think I'm in favor, my concerns would be that for a small benefit we're:

- adding some extra complexity people have to understand
- providing more ways to write something, so more bikeshedding opportunities
- encouraging people to embed structured information in the annotations, in a way that won't be very readable *and* isn't well-supported by the API

Can you give examples of where you want to use this?
(I think we should *probably* accept this regardless, but tests want to iterate over payload-name pairs or things like that we should think a couple of steps ahead)



================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/Testing/Support/Annotations.h:27
+///       $definition^class Foo{};           // points can be named: "definition"
+///       $(very,complex::name)^class Foo{}; // names inside $() can contain any characters
+///       $fail[[static_assert(false, "")]]  // ranges can be named too: "fail"
----------------
How do you feel about `${...}` rather than `$(...)`?

`$foo` looks like shell to me, and so `${foo}` seems like a quoting version while `$(foo)` reminds me more of some kind of embedded expression.

Small difference but maybe others would have similar associations.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D137909/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D137909