aaron.ballman added a comment. In D107292#2920637 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2920637>, @dblaikie wrote:
> Not a huge objection - but minor quandry: What's the motivation for this > patch? I don't know of any codebase that encourages/uses the alternative > tokens and I wonder if adding more usability to them is a worthwhile > investment in clang's codebase complexity, etc. To me, the motivation comes from a signature like: `void foo(int and);` because it looks reasonable until you realize in C++ it means `void foo(int &&);` rather than declaring a parameter name of type `int`. What's worse, it can come up naturally in header files because it's a valid declaration in C if iso646.h is not included. So it's plausible to write the signature in a library exposing a C interface that changes the function signature when compiled in C++ -- this warning helps alert the programmer to such a situation. I'm not aware of any popular coding guidelines that suggest using alternative tokens, but their use does show up in the wild. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
