Is this really that useful of a rule? The language does the right thing for the most part already (you don't need to explicitly delete them - they're implicitly deleted if you define any others - except for backcompat with C++98, but those cases are deprecated & we should probably split out the warning for that deprecation so it's easier to turn on separately)
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Jonathan B Coe via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > jbcoe retitled this revision from "clang-tidy check: Assignment and > Construction" to "clang-tidy check: rule-of-five". > jbcoe removed rL LLVM as the repository for this revision. > jbcoe updated this revision to Diff 46775. > jbcoe added a comment. > > I've responded to review comments (thanks for those) and renamed the check > to 'rule-of-five'. > > I think it needs moving to cppcoreguidelines and needs destructor handling > adding to it. As suggested, I'll address that in a later patch if > everything else looks ok. > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D16376 > > Files: > clang-tidy/misc/CMakeLists.txt > clang-tidy/misc/MiscTidyModule.cpp > clang-tidy/misc/RuleOfFiveCheck.cpp > clang-tidy/misc/RuleOfFiveCheck.h > docs/clang-tidy/checks/list.rst > docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-rule-of-five.rst > test/clang-tidy/misc-rule-of-five.cpp > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
