alexfh added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/OneNamePerDeclarationCheck.cpp:130
+ if (isa<TypedefDecl>(*(FirstVarIt + 1)))
+ return "typedef " + TypeString;
+
----------------
Should we suggest `using x = ...;` in C++11 code?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/OneNamePerDeclarationCheck.h:25
+class OneNamePerDeclarationCheck : public ClangTidyCheck {
+private:
+ std::string getUserWrittenType(const DeclStmt *DeclStmt, SourceManager &SM);
----------------
firolino wrote:
> firolino wrote:
> > alexfh wrote:
> > > nit: move the private section to the end.
> > [[
> > http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-of-class-and-struct-keywords
> > | LLVM Coding Standards ]] is putting the private section at the beginning
> > as well. Even in the code base, it seems to be the general rule. While you
> > are reading code from top to bottom, you need to get the necessary context
> > (variables and their types) first, before proceeding to the functional
> > code. Otherwise, you would have to scroll all the time down to the private
> > variables - when passing its usage in a function - to get its type. This
> > would impair the reading fluency and thus the straight-forwarding
> > understanding of the code.
> Or is it, because there is just a function and not a private variable?
I don't think there's a rule to this effect in LLVM Coding Standards or a
widely accepted convention, it's rather my personal preference (maybe because
it's consistent with the Google C++ Style Guide,
https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Declaration_Order). Also, the
argument you're using doesn't seem to apply here, since the private
implementation details aren't used in the public part below it (because, there
are no non-empty definitions in it).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27621
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
