xazax.hun added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseTransparentFunctorsCheck.cpp:26 + unless(hasAnyTemplateArgument(refersToType(voidType()))), + hasAnyName("::std::plus", "::std::minus", "::std::multiplies", + "::std::divides", "::std::modulus", "::std::negate", ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > Should we make this a configurable list that users can add to? I am not sure how frequent is that somebody would like to add some types to this list, but it can be added in a follow up patch. ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseTransparentFunctorsCheck.cpp:61 + Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<CXXConstructExpr>("FuncInst")) { + diag(FuncInst->getLocStart(), "prefer transparent functors"); + return; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > This diagnostic is too terse; anyone that is unaware of what a transparent > functor is will likely be stumped by it, especially since there is no fixit. > > Since this is the case where we cannot be sure that a transparent functor is > the correct solution, should this be enabled via an option (default on)? I also extended the error message to refer to the alternative name (diamond operators) as well. I did add an option but I am not happy with the name of the option. Do you have a suggestion? https://reviews.llvm.org/D24894 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits