Quuxplusone added a comment.
The cult of "no magic numbers" is horrible and we should be trying to
//deprogram// its adherents, not create a whole new generation of them. I would
be happy if this clang-tidy patch were quickly abandoned. //But//, it's just a
clang-tidy check — it's easy for people who don't want it to ignore its
existence — so I'll just plan to be in that group of people.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/readability-magic-numbers.cpp:38
+public:
+ TwoIntContainer(int val) : anotherMember(val * val), yetAnotherMember(2),
anotherConstant(val + val) {}
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:73: warning: magic number integer literal 2
[readability-magic-numbers]
----------------
How come you diagnose `2 * x` but not `x + x` or `x << 1`? Do you have a
rationale for why the former is worse than the latter?
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/readability-magic-numbers.cpp:56
+
+int ValueArray[] = {3, 5};
+// CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:21: warning: magic number integer literal 3
[readability-magic-numbers]
----------------
Given that you're trying to diagnose certain kinds of static data arrays and
not others, I'd be interested to see what you think ought to happen if you put
`{3, 5}` in a context where it creates an `initializer_list` of static lifetime.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D49114
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
