aaron.ballman added a comment. In D67140#1656831 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140#1656831>, @NoQ wrote:
> Honestly, i'm much more worried about message capitalization :) Likewise. I wish the static analyzer would follow the usual conventions followed by clang and clang-tidy. ;-) In D67140#1657421 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140#1657421>, @alexfh wrote: > Historically, clang-tidy only used the term "check" (to denote the thing that > checks something, rather than the rule being checked or the act of checking), > and we tried to keep its use consistent. However, "checker" is a more precise > and less ambiguous way to convey this meaning. I support to use the term > "checker" in clang-tidy, as long as someone is willing to update the code and > documentation (except for verbs, e.g. the `check()` method ;). Also note that > there's a non-trivial number of out-of-tree check(er)s out there. They will > need to be updated as well. > > Adding Aaron in case he has a different opinion. My primary concern is with needless churn for out-of-tree clients. They don't get any real added benefit from the change in nomenclature, but renaming `ClangTidyCheck` to `ClangTidyChecker` will break every single out of tree clang-tidy checker. I've not used the plugin infrastructure for clang-tidy, but will this cause plugins to fail to load? If so, is it a silent failure or a noisy one? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67140 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
