<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    On 11/11/2015 06:22, Sean Silva via cfe-dev wrote:<br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAHnXoamdYCAvd7AYv2rMUvvYrm0OktnVpn8Q5LCyFxj06tkAHg@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Richard via
        cfe-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span>
        wrote:<br>
        <div class="gmail_extra">
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
                class=""><br>
              </span>The comments on this check seem to be asking for
              the *reverse* check:<br>
              <br>
              switch everything to use auto<br>
            </blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>Commenting from the sidelines, I see two things:</div>
            <div>1. For more "traditional" (for lack of a better term)
              C++ codebases, removing "unnecessary" uses of the ->
              syntax is probably a worthwhile thing on the grounds of
              consistency (we would probably want something like that in
              LLVM, not that we seem to have that problem in LLVM).
              I.e., the policy is roughly "use the -> syntax only
              where strictly necessary, but otherwise, for consistency,
              use the traditional syntax"</div>
            <div>2. The `auto f() -> T` syntax opens up a new style
              altogether, and green pasture projects might want to
              uniformly use that style.</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>So I think your original post is basically about 1. and
              some commenters have noted the existence of 2.</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    exactly.<br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAHnXoamdYCAvd7AYv2rMUvvYrm0OktnVpn8Q5LCyFxj06tkAHg@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_extra">
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <div>They're basically separate use cases and I don't think
              one should hold up the other as far as writing clang-tidy
              checks. </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    +1<br>
    <br>
  
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
        <tr>
                <td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
                        <a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
                                <img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
                        </a>
                </td>
                <td>
                        <p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
                                This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
                                <br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
                        </p>
                </td>
        </tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>