xazax.hun added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseTransparentFunctorsCheck.cpp:26
+ unless(hasAnyTemplateArgument(refersToType(voidType()))),
+ hasAnyName("::std::plus", "::std::minus", "::std::multiplies",
+ "::std::divides", "::std::modulus", "::std::negate",
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Should we make this a configurable list that users can add to?
I am not sure how frequent is that somebody would like to add some types to
this list, but it can be added in a follow up patch.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseTransparentFunctorsCheck.cpp:61
+ Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<CXXConstructExpr>("FuncInst")) {
+ diag(FuncInst->getLocStart(), "prefer transparent functors");
+ return;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> This diagnostic is too terse; anyone that is unaware of what a transparent
> functor is will likely be stumped by it, especially since there is no fixit.
>
> Since this is the case where we cannot be sure that a transparent functor is
> the correct solution, should this be enabled via an option (default on)?
I also extended the error message to refer to the alternative name (diamond
operators) as well.
I did add an option but I am not happy with the name of the option. Do you have
a suggestion?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24894
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
