aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/ReadabilityTidyModule.cpp:133-134
"readability-uppercase-literal-suffix");
+ CheckFactories.registerCheck<UseAlternativeTokensCheck>(
+ "readability-use-alternative-tokens");
CheckFactories.registerCheck<UseAnyOfAllOfCheck>(
----------------
whisperity wrote:
> cjdb wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > I think this might be a case where we want the check to either recommend
> > > using alternative tokens or recommend against using alternative tokens
> > > via a configuration option (so users can control readability in either
> > > direction). If you agree that's a reasonable design, then I'd recommend
> > > we name this `readability-alternative-tokens` to be a bit more generic.
> > > (Note, we can always do the "don't use alternative tokens" implementation
> > > in a follow-up patch if you don't want to do that work immediately.)
> > Hrmm.... I'll do the rename now, but this might be better off as a later
> > patch. I'd rather focus on getting what I have right (along with my teased
> > extensions) and then work on the opposite direction. That will (probably)
> > be an easy slip-in.
> (As someone who's had checkers on review for multiple years I've no hard
> feelings about the scheduling.)
>
> But please do add a few `FIXME:` or `TODO:` or `IDEA:` or some similar
> comments to the code somewhere about the suggested follow-ups. (Just so they
> don't go away when this review is closed.)
Yeah, I wasn't trying to sign you up for the implementation effort, just making
sure the name is somewhat more future-proofed. Adding a FIXME comment to the
code to explain the potential next steps would be a good thing.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107294/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107294
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
