C++: Add table that identifies C++ structured bindings #7928
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jketema
force-pushed
the
structured-bindings-db-scheme
branch
4 times, most recently
from
424d631
to
a4343ce
MathiasVP
reviewed
Feb 21, 2022
|
I think this PR also deserves a change note. |
Accodring to the documentation in `Element.qll`, `underlyingElement` is supposed to be used here and not `unresolveElement`.
Added a change note. |
MathiasVP
approved these changes
Feb 21, 2022
LGTM! (I'll wait with merge until the internal PR has been approved)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
This introduces a new table
is_structured_bindingthat identifies all variables that are declared as part of structured binding declarations. The naming follows the C++17 standard, which calls something likeauto [x, y] = ...a structured binding declaration and thexandyin that declaration structured bindings. Not sure how clear this is, so I'm open to other name suggestions.The table is exposed by adding a predicate to the
Variableclass. Not sure if this is the preferred approach, or whether subclassingVariablewould be better.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: