dblaikie added a comment. In D82617#2119138 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82617#2119138>, @sammccall wrote:
> > Guess perhaps a different question: Why don't you want this for clangd? > > Does it make the codebase better by not adhering to this particular warning? > > Yes, exactly. (Sorry if this wasn't explicit). Sorry - poor phrasing on my part. Seems we disagree on this - I think it's probably a good thing to adhere to, you don't. I'd like to better understand the difference of opinions. My take on it is that having derived classes with hidden overloads seems to me like it could result in confusion when using those derived classes (or worse - if the overload set could result in successful compilation even when the desired overload isn't present - possibly bugs, rather than only confusing compilation errors). Seems good to me to keep the derived classes interfaces not containing such surprises. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82617/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82617 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
