xazax.hun added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18265#386717, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18265#386676, @alexfh wrote: > > > > What about NonIdiomaticAddignOperator or UnchainableAssignOperator? > > > > > > Yep, "unchainable" doesn't cover all problems the check detects. > > `misc-non-idiomatic-assign-operator` seems good though. I'd wait for the > > original author to chime in before making the change. > > > This doesn't check for idiomatic assignment, unfortunately. For instance, it > allows `T &operator=(T)` which is a copy assignment, but not generally > considered an idiomatic one. (Similar for allowing `volatile`-qualified > parameters.) If we want to go with such a check, I would not be opposed to > it, but we should definitely discuss what "idiomatic" means. IMHO `T &operator=(T)` can be idiomatic e.g. when one uses copy and swap idiom or `T &operator=(S)` where S is a type that can be copied efficiently. http://reviews.llvm.org/D18265 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
