alexfh added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidy.h:11 +// +// It should remain as stable as possible, as many out-of-tree checks exist. +//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// ---------------- sammccall wrote: > steveire wrote: > > Clang C++ code does not have any stability requirements. That's quite > > well-established. > > > > This comment adds a new requirement of stability for this C++ API. You > > should probably put a RFC on cfe-dev about it. This header is no more > > public or stable than any other Clang header. > > > > > > Clang C++ code does not have any stability requirements. That's quite > > well-established. > > I was aiming for "stability is a design goal", not "this is a stable API and > you may not break it". > Happy to take a shot at rewording, maybe you have suggestions? > > > This comment adds a new requirement of stability for this C++ API. You > > should probably put a RFC on cfe-dev about it. > > Stability here has always been an aim; I'm trying to document the current > state of the world. > > e.g. in D15528 @alexfh wrote: > > It's one of the goals of clang-tidy to provide an easy way to maintain > > out-of-tree checks. > > > This header is no more public or stable than any other Clang header. > I wish that were true - my current yakshave is reducing the need for > `registerPPCallbacks` to make clang-tidy more flexible for use in a library. > Removing it entirely would be great but having talked to some clang-tidy > maintainers, out-of-tree checks are at least a factor here. I tend to agree with Stephen re: lack of stability guarantees of Clang APIs. Clang-tidy API on its own is not nearly enough to create a useful check, thus any out-of-tree check will use a significant amount of Clang APIs. Though the project aims at providing an easy way to maintain out-of-tree checks, there's little benefit in clang-tidy APIs being more stable than the API surface of Clang needed for an average out-of-tree check. Maintainers of any clang-based out-of-tree code should be ready to update their code with every change of the clang revision they use. Clang-tidy checks are not an exception. Putting this documentation here may send a very wrong message and serve badly both to the clang-tidy developers and to the folks who decide to depend on it. A softer version of this (something along the lines of "A large number of out-of-tree checks depend on this API, so be careful when introducing potentially breaking changes.") may work here, but the same note will be needed on the whole AST, ASTMatchers, and Lex libraries in Clang (and many other ones, I guess). Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D53936 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
