malcolm.parsons added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MiscTidyModule.cpp:70 + CheckFactories.registerCheck<ForwardingReferenceOverloadCheck>( + "misc-forwarding-reference-overload"); CheckFactories.registerCheck<MisplacedConstCheck>("misc-misplaced-const"); ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > leanil wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > I wonder if the name might be slightly misleading -- I've always > > > understood these to be universal references rather than forwarding > > > references. I don't have the Meyers book in front of me -- what > > > nomenclature does he use? > > > > > > Once we pick the name, we should use it consistently in the source code > > > (like the file name for the check and the check name), the documentation, > > > and the release notes. > > Meyers calls them universal references, but it's //forwarding reference// > > in the standard (14.8.2.1). > Hmm, the terms are a bit too new to really get a good idea from google's > ngram viewer, but the search result counts are: > > Google: > "universal reference" : 270,000 > "forwarding reference" : 9650 > > Stack Overflow: > universal reference : 3016 > forwarding reference: 1654 > > So I think that these are probably more well-known as universal references, > despite the standard's nomenclature being forwarding reference. The Q&A section in https://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4164.pdf explains why "universal reference" is a bad name. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D30547 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits