On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D8532#145854, @djasper 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. > > > This is my view on readability as well and one of the reasons I wrote this > check for `clang-tidy`. > > These patches arose from me trying out the new check on a "real codebase" > instead of my single lint based test file. A couple of issues arose from > applying the new check on the code that is helping me to improve my check > beyond just handling the basics, so this is all great feedback for me, even > if the patches don't get accepted. > > The LLVM coding rule of "no `else` after a `return`, `continue`, etc." > probably should be turned into a clang-tidy check, at least for detection > if not correction. > I have committed an initial version of such a check in r226025. > 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
