piotrdz added a comment.
@alexfh: here we go again. Any comments?
================
Comment at:
clang-tidy/readability/InconsistentDeclarationParameterNameCheck.cpp:289
@@ +288,3 @@
+
+ formatDifferingParamsDiagnostic(FormatParamsDiagnosticContext{
+ InconsistentDeclaration.DeclarationLocation, "other declaration",
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> I really don't like this idea of introducing a structure for the sole purpose
> of passing three parameters to a function. I don't see what we gain by doing
> so, and I would prefer the usual way to pass parameters. The same argument is
> valid for `formatDiagnosticsInCaseOfOnlyFunctionDeclarationsPresent` and
> `formatDiagnosticsInOtherCases`.
There is something to gain by it. Although in the end this proved to be a false
problem, and I was able to get rid of these structures, I'll explain my
reasoning.
The problem I was trying to solve here by introducing these structures, is
actually the problem ofpassing reference to the results in
`InconsistentDeclarationsContainer` and `DifferingParamsContainer`.
C++ does not allow for forward declarations of typedefs, so I cannot just say
`class InconsistentDeclarationsContainer;` in header file. I have to provide
full typedef involving `SmallVector` and its magic number in second template
argument. This, I believe, is unnecessary introduction of implementation detail
in header file.
So you see, I created such problem for myself, and this is the solution that I
came up with.
However, now that I looked again at this, I saw a simpler solution.
All these functions formatting diagnostics, use only one member function of the
check class: `diag()`. I was working under the assumption that it was a
protected member of `ClangTidyCheck`. But I was wrong. It's public. So these
don't have to be member functions.*Poof* and all our problems are gone :-)
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12462
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
