gnzlbg added a comment.
Thanks for working on this!
> I'm not sure if it would be helpful to have this check in both ways. I did a
> code search for "not_eq", "bitand" and "and_eq" on github, and their usage
> seems to be a clear minority.
I actually was requesting the opposite version of this (but suggesting to
implement both), because for me "if (!something)" is much harder to read than
"if (not something)" (I am a bit blind).
> So I would propose to keep the features as-is for now, change the name to
> readability-operators-representation, and then later (someone else?) might
> also add an option for making this work the other way around. Would that be
> ok for you?
Sounds good to me. This solves half of the problem, and I agree with you that
more people will benefit from this check than from the opposite check. Thanks
again for working on this!
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31308
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
