whisperity added a comment. In D69560#1889925 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560#1889925>, @vingeldal wrote:
> I think this value very well may strike a good balance in that compromise but > I still think it is a clear deviation from the guideline as specified. > IMO all deviations from the guideline should be explicitly requested by the > user, not set by default, no matter how useful that deviation is. While I am still planning to compile a measurement with potentially tagging false and true positives -- albeit classifying this on random projects I have no domain knowledge about is hard at first glance... @aaron.ballman Could it be a useful compromise to //not// say we are trying to solve the `cppcoreguidelines-` rule, but rather introduce this checker in another "namespace" and maybe mention in the docs that it could, although with caveats, apply "parts" of the Core Guidelines rule? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69560 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
