On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't feel strongly about this, and I can see some of your reasoning. > However, an "if (a) return true; else return false;" is very suspect to me > and I think "return a;" is more readable, independent of whether it is at > the end of a chain or not. > > However, there is an underlying issue here. The existing code is violating > LLVM's coding standard of "don't use else after return" ( > http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#don-t-use-else-after-a-return). > So in these chains, all of the "else"s should be removed. > & that incidentally (sounds like more by accident than design) suppresses the warning. Though, arguably, this clang-tidy check perhaps shouldn't be passing judgment on that particular case and we should have an else-after-return check (we probably already do) for that explicitly. That said, I don't much mind this check happening to provide else-after-return catching in this way. (which is to say, in a round about way, I agree with you Daniel) Maybe it's just a case of two different style checkers happening to catch the same code for different reasons, and the same potential code change addresses both of them. > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Richard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for your ideas, John, I'm going to incorporate this into the >> `clang-tidy` check. >> >> >> http://reviews.llvm.org/D8532 >> >> EMAIL PREFERENCES >> http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
