MagentaTreehouse wrote:
We should not flag [contextual
conversions](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/implicit_conversion#Contextual_conversions)
to `bool`. This is supported by C++ Core Guidelines [ES.87: Don’t add
redundant `==` or `!=`
conditions](https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#es87-dont-add-redundant--or--to-conditions):
> ```c++
> // These all mean "if p is not nullptr"
> if (p) { ... } // good
> if (p != nullptr) { ... } // redundant !=nullptr, not recommended
> ```
> ```c++
> // These all mean "if p is nullptr"
> if (!p) { ... } // good
> if (p == nullptr) { ... } // redundant == nullptr, not recommended
> ```
It looks like we can interpret the issue request to be an implemenation of a
specific case of [ES.46: Avoid lossy (narrowing, truncating) arithmetic
conversions](https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#es46-avoid-lossy-narrowing-truncating-arithmetic-conversions):
> **Note** This rule does not apply to [contextual conversions to
> bool](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/implicit_conversion#Contextual_conversions):
> ```c++
> if (ptr) do_something(*ptr); // OK: ptr is used as a condition
> bool b = ptr; // bad: narrowing
> ```
(Side note: I think it is good to be a Clang-Tidy check under the
`cppcoreguidelines` group)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/131523
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
