Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "isat_or_null".
Did you mean:
isa_or_null
2019 Apr 07
2
[RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
...ke an assertion than a predicate, in which case `isa<T>(not_null(v))` reads like it has the exact same semantics that `isa<T>(v)` has currently—asserts that `v` is not null.
I don't dispute that you can *make* it have the desired semantics, it just won't *look* that way.
maybe `isaT_or_null<Foo>(v)` ? Still looks awkward but maybe less naively misleading.
From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Zachary Turner via llvm-dev
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2019 10:15 PM
To: Mehdi AMINI
Cc: LLVM Development List; Aaron Ballman
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC...
2019 Apr 07
2
[RFC] Should we add isa_or_null<>?
I read `isa<T>(or_null(v))` as "v is a T or nullptr", which does not match
the implementation semantics "v is a T and not null".
On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 9:31 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> Sorry, brain isn't fully working. I meant to call the function / type
> `or_null` instead of `not_null`
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 11:16 AM