LegalizeAdulthood added inline comments. ================ Comment at: test/clang-tidy/readability-non-const-parameter.cpp:3 @@ +2,3 @@ + +// Currently the checker only warns about pointer arguments. +// ---------------- danielmarjamaki wrote: > LegalizeAdulthood wrote: > > How hard is it to extend it to references? > > > > Certainly the confusion about what is const is easier to resolve in the > > case of references because the references themselves are immutable. > If a "int &" reference parameter is not written then probably it's better to > pass it by value than making it const. I would prefer that unless it has to > use "int &" to comply with some interface. > > I realize that the same can be said about pointers. If there is a "int *p" > and you just read the value that p points at .. maybe sometimes it would be > preferable to pass it by value. I thought the point of this check was to identify stuff passed by reference/pointer that could instead be passed by const reference/pointer.
Passing a read-only number type (`short`, `char`, `int`, `float`, `double`, etc.) parameter by pointer or by reference/pointer is a code smell, but this check isn't trying to identify that situation. I'm more interested in things like: ``` void foo(std::string &s); ``` becoming ``` void foo(const std::string &s); ``` when `s` is treated as a read-only value within the implementation of `foo`. http://reviews.llvm.org/D15332 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
