aaron.ballman added a comment. Would it also make sense to support `BinaryConditionalOperator` as well as the ternary operator?
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseBoolLiteralsCheck.cpp:51-52 @@ -34,4 +50,4 @@ void UseBoolLiteralsCheck::check(const MatchFinder::MatchResult &Result) { - const auto *Literal = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<IntegerLiteral>("literal"); - const auto *Cast = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<Expr>("cast"); - bool LiteralBooleanValue = Literal->getValue().getBoolValue(); + for (const auto &BindingName : + {"literal", "trueBranchLiteral", "falseBranchLiteral"}) { + const auto *Literal = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<IntegerLiteral>(BindingName); ---------------- Any reason not to name the bind "literal" in all three cases? That eliminates the need for the loop entirely, since `check()` will trigger for each instance of a match. https://reviews.llvm.org/D23243 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits