njames93 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyOptions.cpp:400
+ DiagCallback Handler) {
+ llvm::yaml::Input Input(Config, nullptr, Handler ? diagHandlerImpl : nullptr,
+ &Handler);
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> njames93 wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > njames93 wrote:
> > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > Would it make sense to require `Handler` to be nonnull with an
> > > > > assertion?
> > > > Wasn't sure which way to go with that one, happy to use an assert if
> > > > you think it's a good idea
> > > Now that I understand the use for this change better, I think the code is
> > > good as-is.
> > Whoops, just changed it to assert
> Heh, sorry about that! Before changing it again, let's make sure we agree. My
> thinking is: this is a general API (rather than a specific one only to be
> used internally) and not every caller may care about reporting diagnostics;
> the error return code is sufficient to tell any caller whether the parsing
> was successful or not.
That's pretty much it, For external users. If they don't care about capturing
the diagnostics then the `parseConfiguration` function should be used. If they
do care and call this new function with an empty callable, they have probably
made a mistake.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92920/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92920
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
