aaron.ballman added a comment. In D55101#1315294 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55101#1315294>, @benhamilton wrote:
> > Would you be okay with landing this fix and if we get any further reports > > for Objective-C++ sources then we can suppress it in all C++/Objective-C++ > > sources? I think there is enough value to enforcing the naming conventions > > on non-namespaced C functions in Objective-C++ to justify a simple followup > > fix. If other issues are reported after this then I also agree that > > enforcement in Objective-C++ sources may incur more overhead than it's > > worth. > > I'm not against it, but we've already disabled the majority of Objective-C > checks for Objective-C++ code, so I don't think this one should apply either. I don't do a lot of Objective-C programming, so take my perspective with the giant grain of salt it deserves. I think this is a reasonable incremental improvement because this code seems more Cish than C++ish, so I can see an argument being made for following the Objective-C rules more than the C++ rules in this one instance. I think it's reasonable to push this commit and then revisit the question for the google module as a whole if there are conflicts between the rules in the same module. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55101/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55101 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
