The check's implementation will be replaced by a simple call to clang tidy. It will remain a check in clang tidy to continue to cater to both use cases.
On Aug 12, 2016 6:19 PM, "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > That's actually the reason I think it makes more sense in clang tidy. It > can be a configuration option, off by default, and since there is more > control over whether to apply fixits, and it doesn't apply fixits by > default, it would be easier to iterate on the experimental nature of it > without messing up code > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:14 AM Alexander Kornienko <ale...@google.com> > wrote: > >> alexfh added a comment. >> >> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23434#513839, @djasper wrote: >> >> > I think we got confused. We once had tried to write an experimental >> separate check to comply with Google's style guide. If you want to fiddle >> around with that, contact me, I can send you pointers. But as I mentioned >> we moved away from that. And I think it makes more sense to re-create the >> sort-across-blocks functionality in clang-format and not in clang-tidy. >> >> >> Yep, we definitely got confused. That experimental check actually >> implemented cross-block sorting, but this caused a bunch of issues. Which >> makes me think that proper implementation of cross-block include sorting is >> challenging be it in clang-format or clang-tidy. Clang-format probably >> makes it even more complex, since a higher safety of transformations is >> expected from it. >> >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D23434 >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
