lebedev.ri added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/readability-function-size.cpp:207-212
+void variables_8() {
+ int a, b;
+ struct A {
+ A(int c, int d);
+ };
+}
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I think the current behavior here is correct and the previous behavior was
> incorrect. However, it brings up an interesting question about what to do
> here:
> ```
> void f() {
> struct S {
> void bar() {
> int a, b;
> }
> };
> }
> ```
> Does `f()` contain zero variables or two? I would contend that it has no
> variables because S::bar() is a different scope than f(). But I can see a
> case being made about the complexity of f() being increased by the presence
> of the local class definition. Perhaps this is a different facet of the test
> about number of types?
As previously briefly discussed in IRC, i **strongly** believe that the current
behavior is correct, and `readability-function-size`
should analyze/diagnose the function as a whole, including all
sub-classes/sub-functions.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44602
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
