aaron.ballman added a comment. In D107292#2943101 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2943101>, @cjdb wrote:
> In D107292#2939521 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2939521>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> One question I have about both declarations and expressions are whether we >> have an appetite to diagnose overloaded operators or not. Personally, I >> think it'd be reasonable to diagnose something like `foo->operator >> bitand();` or `operator not_eq(A, B);` as expressions, but not reasonable to >> diagnose the declaration of the overloaded operators using alternative >> tokens. > > I agree that `bool operator and(T, T);` shouldn't be diagnosed on (and this > patch's clang-tidy sibling will one day also diagnose that, but it's way off). > > I think that `foo->operator bitand()` and `operator not_eq(expr1, expr2)` > should only diagnose if `foo->operator&()` and `operator!=(expr1, expr2)` are > diagnosed, //and// I think that should be a separate warning (I'm not saying > that's a good or bad thing to do yet: let me sleep on that). I might be > misunderstanding your intention though. The situation I was thinking of was where the the declaration is for an `operator&()` function but the expression is calling `operator bitand()` (or vice versa), but 1) I don't feel strongly it needs to be diagnosed, mostly just exploring the shape of the diagnostic, and 2) I'd be fine if it was handled under a separate flag at some later date. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
