JonasToth added a comment.
just my 2 cents
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/UseEarlyExitsCheck.cpp:66
+ if (needsParensAfterUnaryNegation(Condition)) {
+ Diag << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(Condition->getBeginLoc(), "!(")
+ << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(
----------------
did you consider comma expressions?
`if (myDirtyCode(), myCondition && yourCondition)`. It seems to me, that the
transformation would be incorrect.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/readability/use-early-exits.rst:55
+
+ If `true`, split up conditions with cunjunctions (``&&``) into multiple
+ ``if`` statements. Default value is `false`.
----------------
typo `cunjunctions -> conjunctions`
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/readability/use-early-exits.rst:63
+ void Process(bool A, bool B) {
+ if (A && B) {
+ // Long processing.
----------------
if this option is false, the transformation would be `if(!(A && B))`, right?
should demorgan rules be applied or at least be mentioned here? I think
transforming to `if (!A || !B)` is at least a viable option for enough users.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/readability/use-early-exits.rst:112
+
+ If `true`, the check will only report ifs which contain nested control
blocks.
+ Default value is `false`
----------------
maybe highlight the `if` as code with double quotes?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130181/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130181
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
