================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/RemoveCStrCall.h:20
@@ +19,3 @@
+/// \brief Finds unnecessary calls to std::string::c_str().
+class RemoveCStrCall : public ClangTidyCheck {
+public:
----------------
LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> > alexfh wrote:
> > > The fact that it removes something doesn't make it much different from
> > > other checks, and it doesn't deserve a place in the name. Let's call this
> > > check "readability-redundant-cstr" or "readability-redundant-cstr-calls"
> > > instead (and the class `RedundantCStrCheck` or `RedundantCStrCallsCheck`).
> > >
> > > I posted a relevant comment earlier, but it has fallen through the cracks.
> > Fixed.
> I was thinking about names; we have `RedundantSmartPtrGet` and check name
> `readability-redundant-smartptr-get`, a check for redundant calls to `get()`
> on a smartptr class.
>
> Would that make this `RedundantStringCStr` and check name
> `readability-redundant-string-cstr`?
I'd prefer the checks have the `Check` suffix in the class name. This
convention is not strictly followed, but it probably should. The motivation is
discussed in this review thread: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4189.
Thus it can be `RedundantStringCStrCheck` and the check name
`readability-redundant-string-cstr`.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7318
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
