I disagree. Most checkers don't care about such functions. Forcing them to always think about cases that they mostly don't care about seems suboptimal and verbose.
Sent from my iPad On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 1, 2010, at 4:50 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote: > >> That said, the unfortunate thing about this is that it means that all >> checkers that implement VisitCallExpr() will need to do this checking. That >> seems really suboptimal. It seems to me that only a few checkers will care >> about operator methods. > > Checkers that look at the name of the function called need to be aware that > not all names are simple identifiers. The seems completely reasonable to me. > > - Doug _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
