On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Kornienko <ale...@google.com> wrote: > alexfh 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. > > > Maybe you like `misc-assign-operator-conventions` more? ;)
Certainly more than claiming it's idiomatic. :-) Personally, I would prefer this to remain split into a signature and body check, but that can be simulated with config options. ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
