<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I am also trying to determine if such a contribution would be accepted into clang and clang-tidy sources. This would help me decide if it is worth to invest time in this development. I wonder how this process of commits from external parties
looks like.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrzej<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Andrzej Krzemienski [mailto:akrzemi1@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 26, 2018 2:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Krzemienski, Andrzej <Andrzej.Krzemienski@sabre.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Fwd: [cfe-dev] Add a clang-tidy check for inadvertent conversions<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b>Andrzej Krzemienski</b> <<a href="mailto:akrzemi1@gmail.com">akrzemi1@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: 2018-03-21 1:00 GMT+01:00<br>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Add a clang-tidy check for inadvertent conversions<br>
To: cfe-dev <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2018-03-20 22:03 GMT+01:00 Richard via cfe-dev <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">[Please reply *only* to the list and do not include my email directly<br>
in the To: or Cc: of your reply; otherwise I will not see your reply.<br>
Thanks.]<br>
<br>
In article <<a href="mailto:BN6PR13MB1569F3CBF08B69AED1DEC207E8D40@BN6PR13MB1569.namprd13.prod.outlook.com" target="_blank">BN6PR13MB1569F3CBF08B69AED1DEC207E8D40@BN6PR13MB1569.namprd13.prod.outlook.com</a>>,<br>
"Krzemienski, Andrzej via cfe-dev" <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
<br>
> It would be too much false positives to NOLINT.<br>
<br>
It seems that you have to do the edits to add the attribute, so how is<br>
that different from doing the edits to add NOLINT?<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The way I see the difference is that putting a NOLINT is an indication of either:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. An inaccurate check (it has false positives that I have to silence)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">2. My inability to fix my code (because I am not in control of it, or because I have no time to investigate)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Silencing the warning with a dedicated attribute is saying: the check is accurate, my code is correct and clearly states intentions.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">And there is still this other point. I only want to check for inadvertent conversions caused by programmer forgetting to declare her constructor explicit. I *do not want* to warn on non-explicit conversions operators: they are never added
by omission.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">If I go with google-explicit-constructor I will have to NOLINT every non-explicit conversion operator. If I go with the proposed check (which does not check conversion operators -- only constructors) I do not
have to NOLINT any conversion operator.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Does this make sense?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">&rzej;<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>