carlosgalvezp wrote: > I don't think it is a good solution.
Can you elaborate? As I wrote above, the C++ Core Guidelines do not require using `at()`. Therefore the check would be doing something different than what the guidelines require. The reason they don't require it is that there's multiple solutions to this problem, and using `at()` can even do more harm than good. Warning about operator[] is good; but the fix is not globally accepted best practice (as per comments above). All I'm saying is that if this fix is wanted, it should be opt-in, which should be fairly easy to achieve? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90043 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
