ymandel marked an inline comment as done. ymandel added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/unchecked-optional-access.rst:278 + +Given that ``value()`` has well-defined program termination behavior, why treat +it the same as ``operator*()`` which causes undefined behavior (UB)? That is, ---------------- xazax.hun wrote: > Strictly speaking, `value` on an empty optional will not terminate the > program. It will raise an exception that can be handled. > > (Of course, at Google, exceptions are banned so termination is right in that > context.) Right! Updated to mention both possibilities. Thx Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143750/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143750 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
