whisperity added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/readability-identifier-naming.rst:2750-2752 +where an individual identifier can fall into several classifications. Below +is a list of the classifications supported by ``readability-identifier-naming`` +presented in the order in which the classifications are resolved. Some ---------------- So is this resolution order the same for //every Decl//? ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/readability-identifier-naming.rst:2880 + +The code snippet below[1]_ serves as an exhaustive example of various +identifiers the ``readability-identifier-naming`` check is able to classify. ---------------- LegalizeAdulthood wrote: > Should we be linking to ephemeral gists that can disappear? Are the contents of the file linked and the one in the documentation here the exact same? In that case I think if the author gives rights for LLVM to use their work, we can get rid of the link, as it serves no additional value. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126247/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126247 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
