aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseTrailingReturnTypeCheck.cpp:203
+ if (ContainsQualifiers + ContainsSpecifiers + ContainsSomethingElse > 1)
+ return {};
+
----------------
bernhardmgruber wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > This should return `llvm::None`
> I always wondered what the point of `llvm::None`, `std::nullopt` or
> `boost::none` is. When I write `return {};` it looks like i return an empty
> shell, exactly how I picture an empty optional in my head. That is why I
> prefer it this way. I will change it of course for this patch, but would you
> mind giving me a short reason, why `llvm::None` is preferable here?
AFAIK, there's no functional difference between the two and it's more a matter
of consistency. Multiple different types can have the notion of a null state,
and this allows you to consistently specify that null state across types in an
explicit way.
I suppose there might also be a very slight argument for clarity in that a user
reading the code with `{}` could be confused into thinking that is default
constructing the contained type rather than creating an empty optional object.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56160/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56160
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
