aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/OneNamePerDeclarationCheck.cpp:34
+ // a tag declaration (e.g. struct, class etc.):
+ // class A { } Object1, Object2; <-- won't be matched
+ Finder->addMatcher(
----------------
firolino wrote:
> firolino wrote:
> > firolino wrote:
> > > firolino wrote:
> > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > firolino wrote:
> > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > > > Why do we not want to match this?
> > > > > > If we decide, whether we transform
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > class A {
> > > > > > } Object1, Object2;
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > class A {
> > > > > > } Object1,
> > > > > > Object2;
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > class A {
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > Object1,
> > > > > > Object2;
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > I might consider adding support for it. Moreover, this kind of
> > > > > > definition is usually seen globally and I don't know how to handle
> > > > > > globals yet. See
> > > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-November/046262.html
> > > > > I think this should be handled. It can be handled in either of the
> > > > > forms you show, or by saying:
> > > > > ```
> > > > > A Object1;
> > > > > A Object2;
> > > > > ```
> > > > > If all of these turn out to be a problem, we can still diagnose
> > > > > without providing a fixit.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for globals in general, they can be handled in a separate patch
> > > > > once we figure out the declaration grouping.
> > > > OK. I will try to split the object definition from the class
> > > > definition, as you have suggested. Thus, I can kick out the
> > > > tagDecl-matcher as well. If there is no easy way to do this, it will be
> > > > reported anyway but without a fixit.
> > > >
> > > > Note for me: Update documentation!
> > > What about
> > > ```
> > > struct S {
> > > } S1;
> > > ```
> > > I would like to report this too, since two names are being declared here.
> > > `S` and `S1`. What do you think?
> > ```
> > struct {
> > } nn1, nn2;
> > ```
> > Shall we ignore anonymous definitions?
> To be more precise: Warn and provide a fixit for `struct S {} S1`. Only warn
> for `struct {} nn1, nn2`.
> What about
>
> ```
> struct S {
> } S1;
> ```
> I would like to report this too, since two names are being declared here. S
> and S1. What do you think?
I don't think that this should be diagnosed. For one, this is a relatively
common pattern (arguably more common than `struct S { } S1, S2;`), but also, it
names two very distinct entities (a type and a variable).
> ```
> struct {
> } nn1, nn2;
>```
> Shall we ignore anonymous definitions?
Yes, we basically have to.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27621
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
