<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Jonas,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I believe that your use-case is slightly different from what Clang-Refactor tries (or, to be honest, is supposed to try) to support. Basically, Clang-Refactor should be able to process refactoring queries from the user coming from the editor, command line or any other way.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">From my perspective, your use-case perfectly fits into the scope of Clang-Tidy: what you propose seems more like linting than a refactoring (in case of adding const I can totally see how that can fit into the general refactoring pipeline with the “change type of the variable” request, but it has many pitfalls const-ness change shouldn’t invoke). Both cases look very much like Clang-Tidy checks to me:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">* Variable is not mutated anywhere -> change it’s type to `const T`</div><div class="">* Don’t use `int a, b, c;` -> split into `int a; int b; int c;` (I believe we have a tendency to avoid such declarations in the LLVM codebase, certainly a good-to-have check!)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Also, I believe that clang-rename Vim and Emacs integrations were changed for a long long time (although I can see that you recently added Python 3 support, thank you!). I would advise you to use Clangd, which utilises the same infrastructure Clang-Rename does for renamings, but has way better support. I understand that setting up Clangd might be not trivial and I might share my experience soon-ish, so that more people could try it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">To sum up, I would suggest implementing both cases as Clang-Tidy checks. Right now, Clangd exposes compile warnings and Fix-Its to the client, so that user can see potentially problematic places and apply these Fix-Its. AFAIK there is an ongoing effort to integrate Clang-Tidy into Clangd pipeline so that Clang-Tidy warnings and Fix-Its would be also exposed to the user, I am personally very excited about that. Thus said, I believe you might have way better user experience by going this way, because you wouldn’t have to implement stand-alone tools and deal with integration.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Let me know if it works for you!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">Kind regards,</div><div class="">Kirill Bobyrev<br class=""><div><br class=""></div><div><div class="">P.S. You can take a look at the original design: <a href="https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2016-September/050641.html" class="">https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2016-September/050641.html</a>. Unfortunately, nothing major happened ever since, but the idea is still out there, especially now that we have Clangd.</div><div class=""></div></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 25 Aug 2018, at 11:48, Jonas Toth via cfe-dev <<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Hello everyone,<br class=""><br class="">I am currently looking into adding new refactorings for clang to utilize<br class="">them both in clang-tidy and clang-refactor.<br class=""><br class="">While exploring clang-refactor it seemed, that the tool itself does not<br class="">work yet on standalone files, but only for the existing test cases. But<br class="">the code for the tool itself does contain logic to actually apply<br class="">refactorings inplace or to print the new file to stdout.<br class=""><br class="">Given that clang-refactor still seems to be in an unstable stage, could<br class="">someone point me to the right places to make it work as standalone tool?<br class="">I would be very interested to get it running and maybe write a<br class="">vim-integration similar to clang-rename as well.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Background:<br class=""><br class="">For me it would be very valuable to add the refactoring to a central<br class="">place within clang, as I want to extend some of the clang-tidy checks to<br class="">do more code transformations which relies sometimes on prior<br class="">refactorings. For example to change the const-ness of a variable it is<br class="">necessary to isolate the variable declaration first and change the type<br class="">second.<br class=""><br class="">Transforming `int a, b, c = 0;` into `int a; int b; int c = 0;` is the<br class="">refactoring i am implementing at the moment as well. But my code runs<br class="">within clang-tidy as I was able to experiment better with it.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Thank you for the help.<br class=""><br class="">All the best<br class=""><br class="">Jonas<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">cfe-dev mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br class="">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>