aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/ClangdServer.cpp:115
+// either due to crashes or false positives.
+const char *getClangTidyBlacklist() {
+ static const std::string FalsePositives =
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > njames93 wrote:
> > > Return by StringRef?
> > How about `getDisabledClangTidyChecks()` (or literally any other name than
> > blacklist)?
> thanks for bringing this to my attention, i will try to be more conscious
> next time.
>
> I would prefer allow/deny as `disabled` might also be offensive in some
> contexts. Do you know if we already have some settlements around this one in
> the wider community?
> thanks for bringing this to my attention, i will try to be more conscious
> next time.
No worries!
> I would prefer allow/deny as disabled might also be offensive in some
> contexts. Do you know if we already have some settlements around this one in
> the wider community?
I don't believe there's any consensus around avoiding use of "disabled" (we use
the term in a lot of places, especially when paired with "enabled"), but I'd
also be fine with allow/deny terminology instead.
As a minor drive-by comment, the function should also be marked `static` and
placed outside of the anonymous namespace (per our usual coding style).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83224/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83224
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
