stephanemoore accepted this revision.
stephanemoore marked an inline comment as done.
stephanemoore added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/google/GoogleTidyModule.cpp:54
+ CheckFactories.registerCheck<objc::AvoidNSObjectNewCheck>(
+ "google-objc-avoid-nsobject-new");
CheckFactories.registerCheck<objc::AvoidThrowingObjCExceptionCheck>(
----------------
It is a little odd that "google-objc-avoid-nsobject-new" warns on `+new` even
for classes that are not derived from `NSObject`. In a sense, "nsobject-new" is
being used as an identifier for any class method named "new". Interestingly,
renaming to the more direct "google-objc-avoid-new-class-method" is even more
misleading. I have yet to think of a name that I think would actually be better.
While I think the current name is potentially misleading, I think I am okay
with this name for the following reasons:
(1) I believe this will only be misleading in marginal scenarios. I believe
that it will be exceedingly rare for a class method named `new` to exist in a
class hierarchy where the root class is not `NSObject`.
(2) We can always amend the check to restrict it to `NSObject`. In the
unexpected circumstance where someone does provide a legitimate use case for a
class method named `new` in a class hierarchy where the root class is not
`NSObject`, we can simply amend the check to restrict its enforcement to class
hierarchies where the root class is `NSObject`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61350/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61350
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
