BaLiKfromUA wrote: @haoNoQ sorry for late reply, want to respond to this idea!
I agree that attribute-based solution gives much more flexibility and could benefit not only `bugprone-unchecked-optional-access` check but also to the other existing and future clang-tidy checks. > But, of course, that's a matter of a much broader discussion. I don't think > your work should be blocked on implementing any of this. I'm just saying that > you're not alone in this struggle 😅 **If I were interested in starting such a discussion, what would be the right process to follow?** >From what I understand, it might begin with an RFC on Discourse — but since >this is related to introducing new attributes, it seems like it could also >involve the broader Clang community, not just clang-tidy. Will be interested to hear your opinion on this process, so I can access my capacity and the scope of work! Thanks! cc @vbvictor https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144313 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
