aaron.ballman added a comment. In D102213#2753388 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102213#2753388>, @vsavchenko wrote:
> I honestly don't see a reason why it's not a part of `forFunction`. > `forFunction` matches C++ methods and lambdas, Obj-C methods and blocks don't > seem that much more special to have an extended matcher just for those. > I really don't think that it will break someone's workflow and that someone > really relied on the fact that `forFunction` doesn't match those. I think this is a good observation -- if you modify `forFunction()`, do you see any test failures that look unexpected when running all the clang-tidy tests? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D102213/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D102213 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
