aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseEqualsDeleteCheck.cpp:29 + cxxMethodDecl( + anyOf(isCopyAssignmentOperator(), isMoveAssignmentOperator())), + cxxDestructorDecl())); ---------------- malcolm.parsons wrote: > 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? anecdote != data, and all that, but: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5753460/a-way-to-disable-conversion-operators I do agree though, this is not as common as noncopyable classes. ================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseEqualsDeleteCheck.cpp:52 + diag(SpecialFunction->getLocation(), + "use '= delete' to prevent a default special member function") + << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(EndLoc, " = delete"); ---------------- malcolm.parsons wrote: > 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. Perhaps: "special member function with private access specifier and no definition is still accessible; use '= delete' to explicitly disallow all access"? Or a less-wordy variant. https://reviews.llvm.org/D26138 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
