sbenza added a comment. In D18914#396149 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D18914#396149>, @mgehre wrote:
> ... > I personally think that 1) should be used, because late one could move the > function definition to a source file (removing the inline) without having to > touch > the class declaration. I can extend this patch to transform 2) and 3) into > 1). > > Alternatively, I could add an option to choose between 1), 2) or 3). > What do you think? I agree that (1) is preferred as it makes `inline` an implementation detail and doesn't pollute the class, but that is a style choice. What we could do is transform (3) to (1). That is, if you provide _both_ `inline`s we remove one as it is redundant. That matches with the purpose of this check. But changing (2) to (1) is not removing anything redundant, it is a style change. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D18914/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D18914 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
