omtcyfz added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279#510011, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279#510002, @omtcyfz wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279#509896, @compnerd wrote: > > > > > If the argument really is that we want to minimize the tools then Id > > > argue that `clang-rename` also belongs in `clang-tidy` as it would be > > > used to rename fields to match the naming convention (tidying up your > > > code base). > > > > > > It does not belong to `clang-tidy`. `clang-tidy` is a linter, it is meant > > for diagnosing and fixing typical programming errors. > > > We have the modernize and readability modules which don't really deal with > programming errors at all (for some definition of programming error). All of the checks in `clang-tidy` **issues**. These are also issues: - code style violations - inefficiency And other things. There is a clear difference between fixing issues and refactoring. `clang-format` does refactoring, `clang-tidy` deals with issues. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D23279 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
