Range-based for loops remain messed up -- I'm just disabling the test here and turning a blind eye.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
TODOs in the test for known issues.
I may switch the approach to getting the variable type (on examination, this isn't working quite as well as I'd thought) but for now I think it's okay. I had an earlier approach though that may work better overall -- I'd been thinking this would work better, but as you can see in the null check for type information, I think I missed a key point.
Anyways, what'd really been vexing me was `int i, j` which I think I handle passably well now. There's obviously room for improvement, but given I've been going at this for a couple days now, I thought it best to checkpoint where I was.
This also includes some related framework changes to fix bumps I was running into. Overall the tool should operate a bit more smoothly with these changes. There are still issues with overlapping replacements, but I think it's primarily with range-based for loops which I just need to take some time to fix.
Jon Meow
