aaron.ballman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27815#626440, @Prazek wrote:
> The example of this kind of check is here: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D27806 > > I am not sure if it make sense to put it as clang warning. > > After a little bit of thinking I guess name "typos" would be better, because > I want to look for checks that are mostly typos (which are obvious btw) but > it would make it more concrete. When I hear "typo", I think "misspelling" and wonder how it differs from the typo correction that clang frontend has. I've usually heard of what your linked review covers as a "thinko" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thinko) because you made a logical mistake rather than a misspelling, but that's a pretty awful name for the module. ;-) Perhaps "mistake-", "oops-", "derp-" or something along those lines (well, maybe not "derp")? https://reviews.llvm.org/D27815 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
