Quuxplusone added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/AvoidFunctionalCheck.h:19 + +/// Check for several deprecated types and classes from <functional> header +/// ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > alexfh wrote: > > alexfh wrote: > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > I'm not sure if this check should be limited to <functional> or be > > > > extended to a full 'deprecated API' check. > > > > > > IIUC, it should be possible to implement fixits at least for some use > > > cases here. My impression was that Jens was at least considering to work > > > on fixits. The other check mentioned here - > > > `modernize-replace-random-shuffle` already implements fixits. Fixits are > > > specific to the API and some codebases may have better replacement APIs > > > than what the standard suggests, so different users may want to apply > > > different set of the fixes. Given all that, I wouldn't just merge all of > > > the checks dealing with deprecated APIs. Splitting them at least by > > > header seems like a good start, maybe even finer granularity may be > > > needed in some cases. > > TL;DR "they do drastically different things" is the case for this check and > > modernize-replace-random-shuffle. > I disagree that they do drastically different things or that fix-its are a > problem. Some of these APIs have replacements, others do not. At the end of > the day, the basics are the same: the functionality is deprecated and you > should consider a replacement. Sometimes we know that replacement up front, > other times we don't. I don't think we should make users reach for a > per-header file answer to that problem unless it provides them some benefit. > I don't see users caring to update <functional> but not other headers. > > I can see benefit to splitting the *implementations* of the checks along > arbitrary lines, but how we structure the implementation is orthogonal to how > we surface the functionality. This sounds like clang-tidy ought to have an umbrella option here, analogous to how -Wformat turns on -Wformat-security, -Wformat-truncation, -Wformat-overflow, etc. (Well, in GCC it doesn't, but that's the general idea.) So there could be a 'modernize-avoid-deprecated-in-c++11' umbrella option that turns on both 'modernize-replace-random-shuffle' and 'modernize-avoid-functional'; a 'modernize-avoid-removed-in-c++17' umbrella option that turns on those two plus some other options; and so on. Just a thought. If such a structure is anathema to how clang-tidy does things, then never mind. :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D42730 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
