MyDeveloperDay added a comment. @poelmanc thank you for the very detailed explanation to what was probably my very naive point, I have to say with more information I am inclined to agree with you that perhaps you need to see all the replacements as a whole to make reasonable assumptions. But I appreciate you making the change to accommodate my concern.
As I'm not over here in clang-tidy land very often I will leave you to the others (and they give very detailed reviews), so I'll wish you good luck and if it helps make clang-tidy and clang-format work better together then you definitely have my vote! ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:27 #include "clang/ASTMatchers/ASTMatchFinder.h" +#include "clang/Basic/CharInfo.h" // for isWhiteSpace(char), isVerticalWhitespace(char) #include "clang/Config/config.h" ---------------- Nit: I'm guessing you'd drop these comments later ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:143 + ReplacementText.empty(); + LineCheckedThroughPos = R.getOffset() + R.getLength(); + } ---------------- so If I understand correctly, if the ReplcementText is empty we are assuming we've removed it, as opposed to if someone was adding a blank line the ReplacementText would be all whitespace as we might remove it by mistake.. sound reasonable Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68682/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68682 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
