carlosgalvezp added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:141
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+- Added a setting ``bugprone-assert-side-effect.FunctionExceptions`` for
+  a comma-separated list of the names of functions or methods to be considered
----------------
Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> carlosgalvezp wrote:
> > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > Please separate with newline and use single back-ticks for options.
> > I introduced those double backticks due to review comments. As it turns 
> > out, single backticks are only for links, not for formatted text. Should 
> > they be brought back?
> Double back-ticks are for language constructs, single back-ticks for options, 
> tool names, etc.
Hm, I see. I think visually it's much more helpful to have options rendered as 
formatted code (just like you'd see them in the .clang-tidy file in a code 
editor) instead of in italic, which is what is rendered with single backticks.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D116478/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D116478

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to