njames93 marked an inline comment as done. njames93 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyCheck.cpp:224 + else + consumeError(ValueOr.takeError()); + return llvm::None; ---------------- gribozavr2 wrote: > Is this specialization defined only because parsing a string option can never > fail? I'd let this special case behavior fall out of the primary template if > possible. It's because the call to get that returns a `std::string` isn't a template. So in the actual template definition of `getOptional`, trying to call `get<T>` when `T` is a `std::string` results in a compile time error. Consuming the error makes sense knowing the it will always be a `MissingOptionError` Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D84812/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D84812 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
