tra added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/IdentifierNamingCheck.cpp:388 &NamingStyles) { + assert(D && D->getIdentifier() && !D->getName().empty() && !D->isImplicit() && + "Decl must be an explicit identifier with a name."); ---------------- > Speaking of which, the result of getIdentifier() is never used, so the check > should probably be D->isIdentifier() both in this function and in the caller. Scratch that. It's not worth the trouble, IMO. `D->getDeclName().isIdentifier()` is more verbose and does not buy us anything compared to `D->getIdentifier()` which expresses the intent well enough. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52179 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits