haoNoQ wrote:
> > At the moment of the previous PR, there was a concern about configurability
> > of check
>
> I think I was about adding an option to configure list of optional classes.
> Probably `OptionalClasses` or similar. I haven't seen issues about it, so it
> may not be a high priority.
All warnings/checks focused on misuse of specific standard C++ classes have to
deal with that same problem at some point. If only there was a universal,
reusable solution in Clang! Like, it'd be nice if there was some kind of fancy
attribute to annotate classes as "similar" to standard classes:
```c++
[[clang::this_class_is_basically_a_custom("std::optional")]]
class NullableValue {
public:
[[clang::this_method_basically_works_like("std::optional::emplace")]]
template <typename... T> T &makeValueInplace(T &&... args);
};
```
An attribute-based solution would be particularly useful when you're shipping a
library and you get to add the attributes to your headers. This way you don't
have to ask your users to include stuff in their respective clang-tidy configs
whenever they include your library. It'd simply work "out of the box" for all
users.
But, of course, that's a matter of a much broader discussion. I don't think
your work should be blocked on implementing any of this. I'm just saying that
you're not alone in this struggle 😅
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144313
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
