LegalizeAdulthood added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/RawStringLiteralCheck.cpp:88
@@ +87,3 @@
+}
+
+bool containsDelimiter(StringRef Bytes, const std::string &Delimiter) {
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > I think Alex's point is: why not R"('\"?x01)" (removing the need for lit)?
> Exactly, I was only talking about `lit`, not about using the raw string
> literal.
It was looking a little busy to my eyes with the raw string " and the quoted "
close together. It isn't necessary, but IMO improves readability.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/RawStringLiteralCheck.cpp:96
@@ +95,3 @@
+ std::string Delimiter;
+ for (int Counter = 0; containsDelimiter(Bytes, Delimiter); ++Counter) {
+ Delimiter = (Counter == 0) ? "lit" : "lit" + std::to_string(Counter);
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> Please address my comment above that relates to this code. Specifically, I
> find this generic algorithm unnecessarily inefficient and too rigid, i.e. one
> can't configure a custom set of delimiters that don't follow the
> <prefix><number> pattern. I suggest using a list of pre-concatenated pairs of
> strings (like `R"lit(` and `)lit"`).
Raw strings are new and not many people are using them because the don't have a
good way to automatically convert disgusting quoted strings to raw strings. So
I don't think it is reasonable to draw conclusions by looking in existing code
bases for raw strings.
We're having the same conversation we've had before. I'm trying to do a basic
check and get things working properly and the review comments are tending
towards a desire for some kind of perfection.
I don't see why we have to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Nothing you
are suggesting **must** be present now in order for this check to function
properly and reasonably.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16529
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
