================
@@ -150,8 +150,8 @@ void test(std::string s, std::string_view sv, sub_string
ss, sub_sub_string sss,
// CHECK-FIXES: puv.starts_with("a");
puvf.find("a") == 0;
- // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:{{[0-9]+}}: warning: use starts_with
- // CHECK-FIXES: puvf.starts_with("a");
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:{{[0-9]+}}: warning: use startsWith
+ // CHECK-FIXES: puvf.startsWith("a");
----------------
nicovank wrote:
I kinda liked the idea of preferring `starts_with` over others.
e.g. `llvm::StringRef` used to have the `startswith` overload until
4ec9a662d388db8a2bb862dbaa7fc3fd809d1240, `folly::StringPiece` still uses
`startsWith`:
[folly/Range.h](https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/0aa6ed46b941d384214b9a0cdf9b339bf68913c6/folly/Range.h#L973-L989)
I feel like most projects are likely to move towards `starts_with` to match
standard if multiple overloads are present, so might as well recommend it with
higher priority. What do you think?
Suggestion to keep ordering, merged with other suggestion above to remove and
simplify out the desugar/subclass logic:
```
const auto ClassTypeWithMethod = [](const StringRef MethodBoundName,
auto... MethodName) {
return cxxRecordDecl(anyOf(
hasMethod(cxxMethodDecl(isConst(), parameterCountIs(1),
returns(booleanType()), hasName(MethodName))
.bind(MethodBoundName))...));
};
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112101
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
