LegalizeAdulthood added inline comments.
================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/readability-simplify-boolean-expr.rst:59
@@ -56,3 +58,3 @@
4. The conditional return ``if (p) return true; return false;`` has an
implicit conversion of a pointer to ``bool`` and becomes
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Update for member pointers.
> > Do I really need to explicitly say member pointer as well? It seems
> > redundant.
> >
> > I didn't update it because a pointer to a member is a pointer. When used
> > as an implicit conversion to `bool`, the syntax is no different for a plain
> > pointer than for a member pointer. If the syntax were different, I could
> > see your point.
> >
> A pointer to a member is not a pointer according to the language standard,
> and that's why it may not be a bad idea to call it out explicitly as being
> supported. From [basic.compound]p3, "Except for pointers to static members,
> text referring to “pointers” does not apply to pointers to members." I do
> take your point about the syntax of the implicit conversion being the same,
> but it would be nice to be explicit about what we support. I would just
> change it to say "...implicit conversion of a pointer (or pointer to member)
> to ``bool``..."
Meh. I don't mind doing that, but the standard gets hyper-anal about how
everything is called because without it the standard would be much more
ambiguous. I certainly don't want clang (or clang-tidy) documentation to start
reading like the C++ Standard. In other words, while such specific language is
necessary in the standard, I don't think anyone is going to be confused by how
I originally worded it.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16308
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
