dblaikie added a comment. In D107292#2921901 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2921901>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D107292#2920774 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2920774>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> In D107292#2920746 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2920746>, @cjdb wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >>> There are codebases that use them (all of my non-Google, non-LLVM code >>> does, for example, and I'm not the sole user: just a loud one who's also in >>> a position to patch tooling). >> >> Ah, any pointers to large open source projects that use this? > > https://codesearch.isocpp.org/cgi-bin/cgi_ppsearch?q=bitand&search=Search > > (Searching for 'and' is a bit less useful because of how much it shows up in > assembly, comments, etc.) Ah, cool. Only case I could find there (that wasn't C code or compiler test cases) was something called FuzzyLite (which looks like it hasn't been touched in 4 years or so). I don't fundamentally object to this now it's being proposed as a clang-tidy thing - bar should be low/easy for experiments, getting user experience, adoption, etc. 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
