erik.pilkington added a comment. In D61147#1479956 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61147#1479956>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D61147#1479940 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61147#1479940>, @erik.pilkington > wrote: > > > In D61147#1479932 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61147#1479932>, @rjmccall > > wrote: > > > > > I do not think the ObjC version of this diagnostic is useful as it's been > > > explained here, and I would strongly recommend just not including such a > > > warning for the time being. > > > > > > Why? It seems to me like the vast majority of methods only declared in an > > `@implementation` are used as local helpers (even if people probably should > > be using functions for this), where this warning would be useful. Maybe I'm > > missing something? Still trying to learn more about Objective-C. > > > What rule are you suggesting for whether a method is "only declared in an > `@implementation`"? Where exactly are you proposing to look for other > declarations? > > Objective-C does not have a formalized notion of an `@implementation`-private > method, or really even an unambiguous convention for them (underscoring is > *library*-private by convention, not class-private). The Objective-C > ecosystem includes a lot of informal protocols and conventions based around > discovery via naming, and Objective-C programmers do (admittedly rarely) just > override methods that they know are there but which they can't see. These > things make me very worried about trying to port assumptions from other > languages. Concretely, I was just thinking of using something like `ObjCMethodDecl::isOverriding`, but if that isn't a good enough heuristic for finding local methods then I guess we should just forgo methods entirely. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61147/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61147 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
