================
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+.. title:: clang-tidy - modernize-use-placeholder-binding
+
+modernize-use-placeholder-binding
+==================================
+
+Finds structured bindings where one of the bindings is only used to suppress
+an "unused variable" warning via a ``(void)name;`` statement, and suggests
+replacing that binding with a C++26 placeholder (``_``) instead, removing the
+now unnecessary suppression statement.
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+ const auto [x, y] = compute();
+ (void)y;
+ use(x);
+
+ // becomes
+
+ const auto [x, _] = compute();
+ use(x);
+
+This also applies to structured bindings declared in the init-statement of an
+``if``, ``switch``, or ``for`` statement:
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+ if (const auto [it, inserted] = set.insert(value); inserted) {
+ (void)it;
+ // ...
+ }
+
+ // becomes
+
+ if (const auto [_, inserted] = set.insert(value); inserted) {
+ // ...
+ }
+
+Limitations
+-----------
+
+The check only recognizes the ``(void)name;`` suppression idiom as a
+standalone statement directly inside a compound statement. It does not
+diagnose bindings that are simply unused with no suppression statement, nor
+bindings suppressed some other way. It also does not diagnose a suppression
+cast that is the sole substatement of a ``case`` or ``default`` label (for
+example, inside a ``switch``), since removing it safely would require
+special-casing the label rather than the statement.
----------------
zwuis wrote:
Oh I didn't make it clear.
I meant demonstrating the 'require', i.e. the problem after removing the
substatement of a `case` or `default` label.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/207604
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
