NoQ marked an inline comment as done.
NoQ added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/HTMLDiagnostics.cpp:612
+ return !(Range.getBegin().isMacroID() || Range.getEnd().isMacroID());
+}
+
----------------
Charusso wrote:
> Side note: I like the other form of De Morgan's laws because here I have to
> apply it in my head every time I see such a construct. Also we are using this
> function in negation, so I would write:
> ```lang=c
> static bool isMacro(const SourceRange &Range) {
> return Range.getBegin().isMacroID() || Range.getEnd().isMacroID();
> }
> ```
>
> The idiom is to write code for readability so that understandability over
> everything else.
Objection :) I want this function to figure out if a pop-up range should be
displayed, not whether the range is in a macro. Like, if we come up with other
excuses for not displaying a range, we'll update this function, not make a new
one. And if we need to check whether something is a macro in another place,
we'll make a new function, not re-use this one.
I could do something like `shouldSkipPopUpRange()` but that'd move the
confusing negation into the function name, making call sites harder to read.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73993/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73993
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
