alexfh added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/ModernizeTidyModule.cpp:58 "modernize-use-bool-literals"); - CheckFactories.registerCheck<UseDefaultCheck>("modernize-use-default"); + CheckFactories.registerCheck<UseEqualsDefaultCheck>("modernize-use-equals-default"); CheckFactories.registerCheck<UseEmplaceCheck>("modernize-use-emplace"); ---------------- malcolm.parsons wrote: > alexfh wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > malcolm.parsons wrote: > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > What do we want to do, if anything, for people who have scripts using > > > > > the old name? Do we want to keep the old name as an alias to the new > > > > > name for some period of time? > > > > An alias helps if the check was enabled by name, but not if it was > > > > disabled by name. > > > > If the alias is temporary, would you want a deprecation warning? > > > > I wouldn't want to warn about `-checks=modernize*`, but maybe warning > > > > for `-checks=modernize-use-default` would be useful. > > > > An alias helps if the check was enabled by name, but not if it was > > > > disabled by name. > > > > > > Oye, this is true and unfortunate. > > > > > > > If the alias is temporary, would you want a deprecation warning? > > > > I wouldn't want to warn about -checks=modernize*, but maybe warning for > > > > -checks=modernize-use-default would be useful. > > > > > > I think a deprecation warning would be a helpful feature, but not > > > required. I do agree that I would not want a warning for wildcard matches. > > > > > > I would also be fine if we simply had the documentation for > > > `modernize-use-default` forward to the documentation for > > > `modernize-use-equals-default` and put a note in there about the old name > > > being deprecated and leave in an alias to the old name. > > > > > > To be complete, I would also be fine if we remove the old name as in this > > > patch. I am mostly thinking about what default policy we want to have > > > when this situation arises. FWIW, the check was exposed under this name > > > around Oct 2015, so it's been in the wild for over a year, and in a > > > public release. > > I'd personally prefer to leave the old documentation file with a redirect > > and a note about the renaming. Similar to how we treat aliases. WDYT? > If it has a redirect then add_new_check.py will add it to list.rst using the > same wording as an alias. > Is that what you want? > Should it be an alias? I don't care about leaving the old name for the check (probably, better to remove it right away), but leaving the old documentation page with a proper redirect seems useful as a means to resolve users' confusion. I wouldn't call it "alias" in this case though, and including it to the list doesn't seem to be useful (so the document will need to be marked orphan, IIUC). https://reviews.llvm.org/D26511 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits