carlosgalvezp added a comment. In D131386#3723164 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131386#3723164>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D131386#3723144 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131386#3723144>, @carlosgalvezp > wrote: > >>> but removing those options can break people's .clang-tidy config files >> >> Aren't there deprecation mechanisms? I think trying to be backwards >> compatible across all possible versions can lead to suboptimal solutions and >> make the tool harder to use and hard/slow to adapt to the needs of the >> community. > > Nothing stops us from deprecating config options with some nice diagnostic > behavior, but again, this pushes the work off onto the user to maintain their > scripts and gives them an inconsistent interface to clang-tidy where some > checks get formatting options and other checks do not. Yes, I'd agree that the interface becomes inconsistent. Best would be a unified tool that does both fix and formatting as you mentioned earlier. FWIW, there are already other checks that have formatting settings, for example: https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-bounds-constant-array-index.html#cmdoption-arg-includestyle Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131386/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131386 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
