Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "isa_nonnulll".
Did you mean:
isa_nonnull
2019 Apr 06
4
[RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
...isa_and_nonnull<> is a bit of a weird name for me, but I could
>> probably live with it. We could spell it nonnull_and_isa<> to reflect
>> the order of the operations, but that sort of hides the important part
>> of the API (the "isa" bit).
>>
>
> isa_nonnulll works fine for me, isa_and_nonnull is a bit verbose but seems
> OK as well.
>
> For nonnull_and_isa<T>(val) ; it starts to look strangely close to the
> pattern !val && isa<T>(val) ; and I'm not sure it is really such a
> readability improvement anymore?
>...
2019 Apr 10
2
[RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
...t;
>
> isa_and_nonnull<> is a bit of a weird name for me, but I could
> probably live with it. We could spell it nonnull_and_isa<> to reflect
> the order of the operations, but that sort of hides the important part
> of the API (the "isa" bit).
>
> isa_nonnulll works fine for me, isa_and_nonnull is a bit verbose but seems OK as well.
>
> For nonnull_and_isa<T>(val) ; it starts to look strangely close to the pattern !val && isa<T>(val) ; and I'm not sure it is really such a readability
> improvement anymore?
>
> --...
2019 Apr 07
2
[RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
...for me, but I could
>>>> probably live with it. We could spell it nonnull_and_isa<> to reflect
>>>> the order of the operations, but that sort of hides the important part
>>>> of the API (the "isa" bit).
>>>>
>>>
>>> isa_nonnulll works fine for me, isa_and_nonnull is a bit verbose but
>>> seems OK as well.
>>>
>>> For nonnull_and_isa<T>(val) ; it starts to look strangely close to the
>>> pattern !val && isa<T>(val) ; and I'm not sure it is really such a
>>>...
2019 Apr 04
4
[RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:58 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 2019, at 5:37 AM, Don Hinton via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to propose adding `isa_or_null<>` to replace the following usage pattern that's relatively common in conditionals:
> >
> > var &&
2019 Apr 07
2
[RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
...t does not translate with isa<> IMO.
isa_and_nonnull<> is a bit of a weird name for me, but I could
probably live with it. We could spell it nonnull_and_isa<> to reflect
the order of the operations, but that sort of hides the important part
of the API (the "isa" bit).
isa_nonnulll works fine for me, isa_and_nonnull is a bit verbose but seems OK as well.
For nonnull_and_isa<T>(val) ; it starts to look strangely close to the pattern !val && isa<T>(val) ; and I'm not sure it is really such a readability improvement anymore?
--
Mehdi
~Aaron
>
>...
2019 Apr 22
3
[RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
...bit of a weird name for me, but I could
>> > probably live with it. We could spell it nonnull_and_isa<> to reflect
>> > the order of the operations, but that sort of hides the important part
>> > of the API (the "isa" bit).
>> >
>> > isa_nonnulll works fine for me, isa_and_nonnull is a bit verbose but
>> seems OK as well.
>> >
>> > For nonnull_and_isa<T>(val) ; it starts to look strangely close to the
>> pattern !val && isa<T>(val) ; and I'm not sure it is really such a
>> readabi...