alexfh added a comment. In D70974#1769036 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70974#1769036>, @gribozavr2 wrote:
> In D70974#1768902 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70974#1768902>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > > > In D70974#1768871 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70974#1768871>, @gribozavr2 > > wrote: > > > > > I'm not convinced this feature is worth implementing at all, because > > > there's a good alternative to a macro here -- a namespace alias. What is > > > the reason to use a macro instead of a namespace alias? > > > > > > While I think that's a superior solution to using macros, some users have > > macros instead. This fixes a bug reported in > > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26274 and I agree that the behavior > > described in that bug is not what I would expect it to be. > > > I mean, it is possible to break pretty much any ClangTidy check with sneaky > code. But there's a limit to which we should try to make things work in > tricky corner cases. For example, the fix in this patch does not handle > function-like macros (`namespace MY_LIBRARY_NAMESPACE_FOR_VERSION(42) {`). > > LGTM if we must... but I don't think we should. Apart from preprocessor-related stuff, this patch improves support for nested inline namespace declarations (`namespace a::inline b::c`), attributes on namespaces and comments inside namespace declarations. And also reduces the number of special cases. It should be a net positive effect ;) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70974/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70974 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
