gnzlbg added a comment. Thanks for working on this!
> I'm not sure if it would be helpful to have this check in both ways. I did a > code search for "not_eq", "bitand" and "and_eq" on github, and their usage > seems to be a clear minority. I actually was requesting the opposite version of this (but suggesting to implement both), because for me "if (!something)" is much harder to read than "if (not something)" (I am a bit blind). > So I would propose to keep the features as-is for now, change the name to > readability-operators-representation, and then later (someone else?) might > also add an option for making this work the other way around. Would that be > ok for you? Sounds good to me. This solves half of the problem, and I agree with you that more people will benefit from this check than from the opposite check. Thanks again for working on this! Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D31308 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
