bernhardmgruber added a comment.
@aaron.ballman and @JonasToth: Thank you for the patience and all the feedback!
It means a great deal to me to have a patch accepted here!
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseTrailingReturnTypeCheck.cpp:95-98
+ if (!S->getQualifierLoc() && Name.isIdentifier() &&
+ VisitUnqualName(Name.getAsIdentifierInfo()->getName()))
+ return false;
+ return true;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> This can also be simplified into a single return statement rather than an
> `if`, but it's less clear to me whether that's an improvement. WDYT?
Let's simplify it.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseTrailingReturnTypeCheck.cpp:203
+ if (ContainsQualifiers + ContainsSpecifiers + ContainsSomethingElse > 1)
+ return {};
+
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> This should return `llvm::None`
I always wondered what the point of `llvm::None`, `std::nullopt` or
`boost::none` is. When I write `return {};` it looks like i return an empty
shell, exactly how I picture an empty optional in my head. That is why I prefer
it this way. I will change it of course for this patch, but would you mind
giving me a short reason, why `llvm::None` is preferable here?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56160/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56160
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
