baloghadamsoftware added a comment. In D88831#2311802 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88831#2311802>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D88831#2311800 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88831#2311800>, @Eugene.Zelenko > wrote: > >> Does this check make sense in content of other style guides? > > I'd +1 to moving it to `readability`. IMHO this check never made any sense. There **was** a //Google//-specific rule for this, that is why it was placed in `google` not in `readability`. Generally, forcing programmers not to use non-const reference parameters and force them the old //C// way (pointers) does not make any sense. I wonder why this rule was there in //Google//, but outside of it I never saw such a rule. I would surely not place such check into `readability` because following such rule reduces the readability instead of improving it. However, the main point is that even for //Google// there is no such rule anymore thus I see no point to keep this check. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88831/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88831 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
