malcolm.parsons added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/misc/MiscTidyModule.cpp:70
+ CheckFactories.registerCheck<ForwardingReferenceOverloadCheck>(
+ "misc-forwarding-reference-overload");
CheckFactories.registerCheck<MisplacedConstCheck>("misc-misplaced-const");
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> leanil wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > I wonder if the name might be slightly misleading -- I've always
> > > understood these to be universal references rather than forwarding
> > > references. I don't have the Meyers book in front of me -- what
> > > nomenclature does he use?
> > >
> > > Once we pick the name, we should use it consistently in the source code
> > > (like the file name for the check and the check name), the documentation,
> > > and the release notes.
> > Meyers calls them universal references, but it's //forwarding reference//
> > in the standard (14.8.2.1).
> Hmm, the terms are a bit too new to really get a good idea from google's
> ngram viewer, but the search result counts are:
>
> Google:
> "universal reference" : 270,000
> "forwarding reference" : 9650
>
> Stack Overflow:
> universal reference : 3016
> forwarding reference: 1654
>
> So I think that these are probably more well-known as universal references,
> despite the standard's nomenclature being forwarding reference.
The Q&A section in https://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4164.pdf explains why
"universal reference" is a bad name.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30547
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
