alexfh added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/VirtualNearMissCheck.cpp:240
@@ -247,2 +239,3 @@
unsigned EditDistance =
- BaseMD->getName().edit_distance(DerivedMD->getName());
+ StringRef(BaseMD->getNameAsString())
+ .edit_distance(DerivedMD->getNameAsString());
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> alexfh wrote:
> > xazax.hun wrote:
> > > congliu wrote:
> > > > NamedDecl::getName() directly returns a StringRef. Why using
> > > > "getNameAsString()"?
> > > Unfortunately getName will cause an assertion fail for methods that has a
> > > non-identifier name, such as destructors and overloaded operators.
> > Should we maybe exclude operators and destructors from this check? A typo
> > in destructor name won't compile. Do you have an example of a case where
> > the check could be useful in detecting a typo in the name of an overloaded
> > operator?
> >
> > It would be nice to avoid using the (more expensive) `getNameAsString`
> > here.
> Destructors can not be mispelled. Overloaded operators however might be
> virtual, and the user might forget the qualifier and miss the override.
> Although that might be a very rare case. Do you think it is worth to exclude
> that case for performance? Operators might be problematic anyways, the edit
> distance tend to be low there.
I'd leave operators alone until we find a realistic example where this check is
able to detect a problem.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/VirtualNearMissCheck.cpp:240
@@ -247,2 +239,3 @@
unsigned EditDistance =
- BaseMD->getName().edit_distance(DerivedMD->getName());
+ StringRef(BaseMD->getNameAsString())
+ .edit_distance(DerivedMD->getNameAsString());
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> xazax.hun wrote:
> > alexfh wrote:
> > > xazax.hun wrote:
> > > > congliu wrote:
> > > > > NamedDecl::getName() directly returns a StringRef. Why using
> > > > > "getNameAsString()"?
> > > > Unfortunately getName will cause an assertion fail for methods that has
> > > > a non-identifier name, such as destructors and overloaded operators.
> > > Should we maybe exclude operators and destructors from this check? A typo
> > > in destructor name won't compile. Do you have an example of a case where
> > > the check could be useful in detecting a typo in the name of an
> > > overloaded operator?
> > >
> > > It would be nice to avoid using the (more expensive) `getNameAsString`
> > > here.
> > Destructors can not be mispelled. Overloaded operators however might be
> > virtual, and the user might forget the qualifier and miss the override.
> > Although that might be a very rare case. Do you think it is worth to
> > exclude that case for performance? Operators might be problematic anyways,
> > the edit distance tend to be low there.
> I'd leave operators alone until we find a realistic example where this check
> is able to detect a problem.
I'd leave operators alone until we find a realistic example where this check is
able to detect a problem.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16179
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
