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 ---------------- carlosgalvezp wrote: > carlosgalvezp wrote: > > 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. > Also note that the main clang-tidy doc page uses doble backticks for options, > not just language constructs, so I think it would be good to keep consistency > with that: > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/llvm/llvm-project/main/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/index.rst > > Single backticks are used there only for links and together with the > `:program:` keyword. Unless there's some documented style convention that says otherwise, of course. I haven't found anything in the [[ https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html | LLVM Coding Standards ]]. 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
