Modernize it is then. The check currently only catches std::bind but further work can address that.
Jon > On 4 May 2016, at 22:40, Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits >> <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> jbcoe wrote: >> > aaron.ballman wrote: >> > > I believe we use "modernize" to really mean "migrate from the old way to >> > > the new way", which this definitely fits into since I think the point to >> > > this check is to replace bind with better alternatives. >> > Would you prefer it to be in `modernize`? I can be easily convinced either >> > way and am happy to move it. If I do move it I might add a script to >> > facilitate doing so. >> My preference is for modernize, your preference is for readability, so I >> say: make @alexfh the tie-breaker! ;-) Alex, what are your thoughts? This >> seems like a heuristic we may want to state in our documentation to help >> others decide where to put new checks in the future as well. > > FWIW, I'd prefer "modernize", and I'll point out that these waters are > muddied by the fact that three of the old ways (boost::bind, std::bind1st, > std::bind2nd) all existed prior to C++11, so the fact that one of the old > ways (std::bind) was introduced in C++11 doesn't matter so much. > (I haven't looked, but I'd assume that this clang-tidy check catches all four > cases, right?) > > –Arthur
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
