njames93 added a comment. In D117593#3273562 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117593#3273562>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Hmmm, this is a rule for checking a specific style guide. > https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Implicit_Conversions > doesn't say that `explicit(false)` is a reasonable marking. In fact, it says > "Implicit conversions can sometimes be necessary and appropriate for types > that are designed to be interchangeable, for example when objects of two > types are just different representations of the same underlying value. In > that case, contact your project leads to request a waiver of this rule." > > So I think this behavior needs to be behind a flag so that the default > behavior continues to match what the style guide requires (or the style guide > should be updated to clarify the behavior of `explicit(false)`). My understanding of the rule(as a non Googler) was that `explicit(false)` is an effective way to disable the rule by explicitly declaring the constructor to be implicit. Which is much cleaner than throwing `NOLINT` markers about. In any case this c++20 syntax is not supported as the current fixit produces invalid code, as evidenced in the initial bug report. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D117593/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D117593 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
