vbvictor wrote: > Looks like someone did suggest this for the core guidelines: > https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/pull/2289, but it wasn't accepted > out of caution, because there's not enough field experience with it yet. > Seeing that, I'm less sure of the right direction. I'll have to see if we > have "extensions" in other cppcoreguidelines-* checks.
We for sure have some `cppcoreguidelines-*` checks that use `AllowXYZ` options to make them less strict (and practically usable for some people), e.g. https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/special-member-functions.html https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/cppcoreguidelines/pro-bounds-pointer-arithmetic.html So I'm firmly leaning towards `AllowExplicitObjectParameters` option in already existing check instead of creating a new one. We can make this option off-by-default for now (to confront existing Gudelines) and make change it to on-by-default once CppCoreguidelines accept "explicit object parameters" proposal. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/182916 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
