cjdb added a comment. In D128372#3991516 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128372#3991516>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> Ironically as an aside... looking back at the review because of the discource > article. > > The whole reason why I added the [[nodiscard]] checker to clang-tidy 4 years > ago was to cover exactly this use case...and many others like it where users > have a function which returns a boolean and takes no arguments are pointer or > reference (empty() included) > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55433 > > Shouldn't people be using this checker to add nodiscard and let the compiler > to the heavy lifting. Was there a use case as to why that solution doesn't > solve this? That check is for library authors: this one is for library users. There are a non-insignificant number of cases where an unused call to `empty` pops up, hence the desire for this check. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128372/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128372 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
