hokein marked an inline comment as done.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/DefinitionsInHeadersCheck.cpp:25
@@ +24,3 @@
+ SourceLocation ExpansionLoc = SM.getExpansionLoc(Node.getLocStart());
+ StringRef Filename = SM.getFilename(ExpansionLoc);
+ return Filename.endswith(".h") || Filename.endswith(".hh") ||
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> > We're looking at the problem from different angles. My view is that a
> > reasonable file naming convention (which at least makes interface header
> > files, textual headers and main files distinguishable) is a widespread
> > enough practice, and the benefits it brings outweigh the costs of enforcing
> > it. However, the opposite point of view also has its right to exist, so we
> > need a solution that fits both ;)
> >> Perhaps another solution to this is use isInMainFile() ||
> >> usesHeaderFileExtension().
> >You probably meant !isInMainFile() || usesHeaderFileExtension(). I guess,
> >that will work for us. We could also make the list of header file extensions
> >(or a regular expression pattern for header files) configurable, so that the
> >usesHeaderFileExtension() part could be disabled, if needed.
>
> Oops, you are correct, I meant !isInMainFile(). :-) I definitely agree that
> we should make the header file extensions configurable. Would it make sense
> if this were a global option that any checker can use? We have 3-4 other
> checkers that care about header files as well, and it would be nice if they
> all behaved consistently without the user having to write a lot of options
> for each checker.
I'm :+1 on making header file extensions configurable. I think we can do that
in a new patch.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15710
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
