aaron.ballman 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",
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> 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.
I'm fine with a follow-on patch.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseTransparentFunctorsCheck.cpp:61
+ Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<CXXConstructExpr>("FuncInst")) {
+ diag(FuncInst->getLocStart(), "prefer transparent functors");
+ return;
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> 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?
`SafeMode` is a bit dramatic-sounding, but I can't come up with something
better, so it's probably fine.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24894
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
