aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D71199#1775083 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199#1775083>, @whisperity wrote:
> Can you refresh my memory on whether a rule for "if init expr is constant,
> initialise in class body instead" exists for init list members? If so, this
> will be a funny "two pass needed to fix" kind of check.
This worries me as well -- we already have checks that prefer doing an in-class
initialization to using a constructor member initialization list. How should
this check interact with `modernize-use-default-member-init`?
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/readability/ReadabilityTidyModule.cpp:91
+ CheckFactories.registerCheck<PreferInitializationListCheck>(
+ "readability-prefer-initialization-list");
CheckFactories.registerCheck<RedundantAccessSpecifiersCheck>(
----------------
I have a concern with the name using `initialization-list` -- that sounds a lot
like the check is going to prefer `{42}` to `= 42`. Perhaps the name should be
`prefer-ctor-member-initialization` or something along those lines?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
