maflcko wrote:
> > Also, do we want to put this new behaviour behind an option? (general
> > question to other reviewers)
>
> I’m new to clang-tidy, so I may be missing context, but my view is that this
> probably shouldn’t be gated behind a new option.
As already mentioned, there is a separate option for each feature, like
`CommentBoolLiterals`, `CommentStringLiterals`, etc. So simply from a
consistency perspective, it would seem odd to exclude this one.
Moreover, there are patterns where the user would not want to care about the
comment. For example:
```cpp
struct Opts{
bool audio{false};
bool video{false};
bool compress{false};
};
connect(Endpoint& ep, const Opts& opts);
int main() {
Endpoint e{};
connect(e, {.video=true, .compress=true});
}
```
So offering those users a simple way to run the check, except for this one
part, seems reasonable and consistent.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/180408
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
