Update what seems like an outdated comment

[haikusw]

Totally minor, but I was taking a look at the source for educational purposes and noticed that it seems ASTNode evolved to be a union of a few additional types without the file comment being updated. Updated to reflect the code, if I understand it correctly.

[xedin]

Thanks! This is my bad, I have added new members but forgot to update the comment...

[haikusw]

Thanks! This is my bad, I have added new members but forgot to update the comment...

It's not a big deal but my silly brain noticed, so I figured might as well fix it.

I did have an additional related question that perhaps you know the answer to: I also noticed that the macro driven creation of the is{Type} utilities on lines 70-76:

    /// Provides some utilities to decide detailed node kind.
#define FUNC(T) bool is##T(T##Kind Kind) const;
    FUNC(Stmt)
    FUNC(Expr)
    FUNC(Decl)
    FUNC(Pattern)
#undef FUNC

has some of the new union members, but not all of them; perhaps the omitted ones aren't useful, but I thought someone more familiar with the code might want to consider this. (They obviously aren't needed currently since they aren't implemented :)).

[xedin]

@haikusw No worries! Yes, this is intentional because excluded members do have kinds like statements, expressions, decls, or patterns do i.e. isStmt(StmtKind::Return) could be used to determine whether ASTNode refers to a return statement. Conditions and case items are could be checked directly on the ASTNode.

[xedin]

@swift-ci please smoke test

[xedin]

@swift-ci please smoke test macOS platform