aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/AvoidFunctionalCheck.h:19 + +/// Check for several deprecated types and classes from <functional> header +/// ---------------- massberg wrote: > massberg wrote: > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > Missing full stop at the end of the sentence. > > > > > > Why should this modernize check be limited to `<functional>`? Just like > > > we have a "deprecated headers" check, perhaps this should be a > > > "deprecated APIs" check? > > Added full stop. > > > > I'm not sure if this check should be limited to <functional> or be extended > > to a full 'deprecated API' check. > > This change is just a start, several more types and classes which are > > removed from <functional> will follow, e.g: > > > > - std::ptr_fun, std::mem_fun, std::mem_fun_ref > > - std::bind1st, std::bind2nd > > - std::unary_function, std::binary_function > > - std::pointer_to_unary_function, std::pointer_to_binary_function, > > std::mem_fun_t, std::mem_fun1_t, std::const_mem_fun_t, > > - std::const_mem_fun1_t, std::mem_fun_ref_t, std::mem_fun1_ref_t, > > std::const_mem_fun_ref_t, std::const_mem_fun1_ref_t > > - std::binder1st, std::binder2nd > > > > As these are a bunch of functions and types, in my eyes a check just for > > <functional> is fine. But I'm also fine with a general 'deprecated API' > > check. > > Alex, can you comment on this? > There are already other checks for functions which are removed in C++17 like > modernize-replace-random-shuffle. > So I think having an separate check for functions and types removed from > <functional> would be OK. You've hit the nail on the head for what I'm trying to avoid -- we shouldn't have multiple checks unless they do drastically different things. Having a deprecated check like this really only makes sense for APIs that are deprecated but aren't uniformly marked as `[[deprecated]]` by the library. As such, I think we really only need one check for this rather than splitting it out over multiple checks -- the existing check functionality could be rolled into this one and its check become an alias. https://reviews.llvm.org/D42730 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
