zinovy.nis added a comment. In D74692#1923191 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74692#1923191>, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> I still think this entire patch is misguided; there's no reason to make the > note for `const std::string s; std::move(s)` any longer than the note for > `int i; std::move(i)` or `volatile std::string v; std::move(v)`. People > should not be using moved-from objects, period; and those who want to use > moved-from objects, should not enable this clang-tidy check. > > However, I have no further comments //besides// philosophical opposition to > the whole idea. By this patch I'd like to provide more helpful info to the user on why the code is wrong. Anyway I don't like submit this patch if you still have objections. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74692/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74692 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
