I think this is fine as a first version.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidyModule.h:21
@@ +20,3 @@
+
+typedef std::pair<StringRef, ClangTidyCheck *> NamedCheck;
+typedef SmallVector<NamedCheck, 16> ClangTidyCheckVector;
----------------
Daniel Jasper wrote:
> Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > I'd probably use a getName() in ClangTidyCheck instead.
> The point is that I want this to be a configuration feature of the Module
> instead of an implementation detail of the check. I think we might arrive at
> a point where the same Check-class is used with slightly different options in
> several modules and thereby with different names.
Wouldn't that mean that it's even more strongly coupled to the Check class?
Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidyModule.h:29
@@ +28,3 @@
+ virtual ~ClangTidyModule() {}
+ virtual void addChecks(ClangTidyCheckVector *Checks) = 0;
+};
----------------
Daniel Jasper wrote:
> Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > I don't think the typedef buys us much here, but I might be alone with my
> > opinion...
> As you have just asked my to change it above and that change would already
> have required me to change more than a handful of instances, I think you have
> proven yourself wrong ;-).
Well, I don't consider changing 10 lines of code a big issue; when I say I
think it doesn't buy us much, I think that it doesn't aid readability :P
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D884
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
