mgehre marked 2 inline comments as done. mgehre added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/readability-make-member-function-const.rst:10 +The check conservatively tries to preserve logical costness in favor of +physical costness. The only operations on ``this`` that this check considers +to preserve logical constness are ---------------- gribozavr wrote: > Sorry, it is unclear to me what it means: "the check [...] tries to do X in > favor of Y" > > Also unclear what logical/physical constness mean. I guess it should read `tries to preserve logical constness instead of physical constness.` logical/physical constness is from here: https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/const-correctness#logical-vs-physical-state Are there more common terms for this or should I link or copy the explanation? ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/readability-make-member-function-const.rst:17 +* returning const-qualified ``this`` +* passing const-qualified ``this`` as a parameter. + ---------------- gribozavr wrote: > These rules need a justification; if not for the users, but for future > maintainers. > > For example, why isn't reading a private member variable OK? Why isn't > calling a private member function OK? > Sure! Let's first see if you agree to the rules based on the explanation in my other comment. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68074/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68074 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits