[llvm-dev] [RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?

[Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 02:37 David Chisnall via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On 22/04/2019 15:15, Don Hinton via llvm-dev wrote:
> > Although there were a few no votes, it looks like there's a consensus
> > for adding a `isa_and_nonnull` type operator.  While there were some who
> > preferred `isa_nonnull`, it wasn't overwhelming, and since
> > `isa_and_nonnull` is already committed, I'm going to leave it as
> > `isa_and_nonnull` for the time being.
>
> Maybe I missed something, but it looked to me as if the consensus was
> that `isa_and_some_words<T>(foo)` imposed a higher cognitive load on the
> reader than `foo && isa<T>(foo)`, as well as being more to type in most
> cases, so wasn't worth adding.
>

FWIW, I agree with this and Bogner: this doesn't seem like an improvement
worth the cost.


> David
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190504/6b276102/attachment.html>