malcolm.parsons added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseEqualsDeleteCheck.cpp:29 + cxxMethodDecl( + anyOf(isCopyAssignmentOperator(), isMoveAssignmentOperator())), + cxxDestructorDecl())); ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > How about a conversion operator, like `operator bool()`? You'll sometimes see > that one declared privately for similar reasons. I haven't seen that. Do you have an example? ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseEqualsDeleteCheck.cpp:52 + diag(SpecialFunction->getLocation(), + "use '= delete' to prevent a default special member function") + << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(EndLoc, " = delete"); ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > This diagnostic isn't very clear to me -- what does it mean to "prevent" a > default special member function? > > The fixit for this is also somewhat unsatisfying as this takes a private, > not-defined function and turns it into a private, deleted function. That's a > very small win, because it only impacts code which could access the special > member function in the first place (some compilers give a diagnostic about > the special member function being inaccessible even if it's explicitly marked > as deleted; clang is not one such compiler). Do we have a way to rewrite the > access specifier for the special member function as well (kind of like how we > have a way to handle includes we're adding)? I am guessing not yet, but if we > do, that would be fantastic to use here. > > Note, I don't think this should hold up your patch or the fixit. A small win > is still a win. :-) Do you have a better wording for the diagnostic? I don't see any utility functions to make a method public. https://reviews.llvm.org/D26138 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
