malcolm.parsons added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseEqualsDeleteCheck.cpp:58 + << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(StartLoc, "public: ") + << FixItHint::CreateInsertion(AfterLoc, " private:"); +} ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > I am on the fence about this fixit. On the one hand, the fix is a technical > improvement because it means that implementations will consistently find the > declaration and bark about it being explicitly deleted. On the other hand, > the fixit suggests code that should never pass a reasonable code review. > > I'm wondering if it would make more sense to leave the access specifiers > alone and just put a FIXME in the code to point the situation out. I am > guessing that at some point we will have a refactoring tool that can help > without resorting to making declarations like `public: C() = delete; > private:`. > > What do you think? I'm wondering whether no fixit would be better than a not-good-enough fixit. https://reviews.llvm.org/D26138 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
