bernhardmgruber marked 12 inline comments as done. bernhardmgruber added a comment.
Thank you for the time to review this! Could you please also commit it for me? Thank you! ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/modernize/UseTrailingReturnTypeCheck.cpp:430 + AT->getKeyword() == AutoTypeKeyword::Auto && + !hasAnyNestedLocalQualifiers(F->getDeclaredReturnType())) + return; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > bernhardmgruber wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > bernhardmgruber wrote: > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > Why do we need to check that there aren't any nested local > > > > > > qualifiers? > > > > > Because I would like the check to rewrite e.g. `const auto f();` into > > > > > `auto f() -> const auto;`. If I omit the check for nested local > > > > > qualifiers, then those kind of declarations would be skipped. > > > > I'm still wondering about this. > > > > Because I would like the check to rewrite e.g. const auto f(); into > > > > auto f() -> const auto;. If I omit the check for nested local > > > > qualifiers, then those kind of declarations would be skipped. > > > > > > I don't think I understand why that's desirable though? What is it about > > > the qualifier that makes it worthwhile to repeat the type like that? > > Thank you for insisting on that peculiarity! The choice is stylistically > > motivated to align function names: > > > > ``` > > auto f() -> int; > > auto g() -> std::vector<float>; > > auto& h(); > > const auto k(); > > decltype(auto) l(); > > ``` > > vs. > > ``` > > auto f() -> int; > > auto g() -> std::vector<float>; > > auto h() -> auto&; > > auto k() -> const auto; > > auto l() -> decltype(auto); > > ``` > > > > But judging from your response, this might be a surprise to users. Would > > you prefer having an option to enable/disable this behavior? > > But judging from your response, this might be a surprise to users. Would > > you prefer having an option to enable/disable this behavior? > > Maybe it will be, maybe it won't. :-D The reason I was surprised was because > it feels like a formatting related choice rather than a modernization related > choice. However, I've always struggled to understand the utility of this > check (it's one I disable in every .clang-tidy configuration file I can), so > my reasoning may be flawed. I feel like the goal of this check isn't to > format code nicely, it's to modernize to using a trailing return type where > that adds clarity. But I don't think `auto& func()` changing into `auto > func() -> auto&` adds clarity (I think it removes clarity because the second > signature is strictly more complex than the first), and similar for > qualifiers. However, I think the exact same thing about `int func()` changing > into `auto func() -> int`. > > Given that we document this function to rewrite all functions to a trailing > return type signature, I guess the behavior you've proposed here is > consistent with that goal and so I'm fine with it. > However, I've always struggled to understand the utility of this check (it's > one I disable in every .clang-tidy configuration file I can) I am sorry to hear that, but I have heard this from many other people as well. I am sometimes questioning myself whether it was a mistake to put this check into clang-tidy and annoy a lot of people. It might have been better as a standalone tool. > I feel like the goal of this check isn't to format code nicely, it's to > modernize to using a trailing return type where that adds clarity. I like that thinking! I started with trailing return types as a stylistic choice, but I soon realized that it indeed can add clarity by shifting away complicated return types to the end of a line where they bother me less. > But I don't think `auto& func()` changing into `auto func() -> auto&` adds > clarity (I think it removes clarity because the second signature is strictly > more complex than the first). With regard to clarity, you are right. And I noted down now that I shall add an option to prevent some of these rewrites. Thank you for the feedback! CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80514/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80514 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
