aaron.ballman added a comment. In D107292#2922575 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2922575>, @dblaikie wrote:
> 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 suspect that `bitand` is used less than `and` because I believe bitwise operations are less common than logical ones. > 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. FWIW, my feeling is that *this* proposed patch is reasonable for Clang but the proposed patch for suggesting use of alternative tokens (or not) belongs in clang-tidy. This patch proposes a diagnostic that catches bugs and can be on by default without false positives, the other patch proposed diagnostics that were more about coding style. 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
