JonasToth added a comment.
C.131 seems to imply a minimal amount of trivial getters/setters before
diagnosing.
I feel that the CPPCG just want to force the programmer to think twice
instead of forbidding it totally.
It might be worth to have a more chatty/specific check for the CPPCG and
a strict "Don't do it" for HICPP.
From my experience with asking the CPPCG authors it takes a while for a
response and that in the end is
not necessarily telling which way to go. Experience might differ
depending on topic though.
> Hmm, I don't know that it would help with code like this:
>
> class Base {
> int f; // Suggested by C.133/C.9
>
> protected:
> // int f; // Disallowed by C.133
>
> int getF() const { return f; } // Suggested by C.133, disallowed by C.131
> void setF(int NewF) { f = NewF; } // Suggested by C.133, disallowed by
> C.131
> };
>
>> Still worth asking the authors.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52771
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
