[PATCH] D45392: [clang-tidy] add new check to find out objc ivars which do not have prefix '_'

[Eugene Zelenko via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

Eugene.Zelenko added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392#1061064, @Wizard wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392#1060971, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392#1060912, @Wizard wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392#1060854, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > >
> > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392#1060845, @Wizard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392#1060485, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If this is Apple guideline, check name should reflect this. I think will be good idea to have general check for Apple naming conventions instead of separate checks for specific situations like //objc-ivar-declaration// and //objc-property-declaration//.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. I understand your point that they are both naming convention, however, they are about different components and using totally different naming rules. PropertyDeclarationCheck is already a very complicated check (the most complicated one for ObjC), I would rather not make it more heavy and try my best to split independent logic to different checks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > See readability-identifier-naming <http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability-identifier-naming.html> as example of multiple rules in one check.
> > >
> > >
> > > I took a look at IdentifierNamingCheck. Here's my thought:
> > >
> > > 1. IdentifierNamingCheck is trying to apply configurable naming convention to C++ identifiers, and all the identifiers will share the same style set. That is not the case of ObjC, where we follow Apple's programming guide, and different types of identifiers are using different style.
> > > 2. Such pattern can handle complicated requirements but to me it is not simple enough to read and maintain. I would rather keep things simple and clear as long as we have choice.
> > >
> > >   However, this check provides a good example of refactoring if in the future we have the needs of organizing complicated naming styles. Moving from simplicity to complexity is always easier. Thanks for pointing this out for us.
> >
> >
> > My point is not flexibility of configuration, but handling of various types of identifiers in same check, even if conventions are different.
>
>
> Yes I understand but I mean "flexibility of configuration" is one of the reasons of handling of various types of identifiers in same check, but we don't need it here.


>From user point of view, it's much easy to have one check which will check all possible types of identifiers, then set of not so obviously related checks.


Repository:
  rCTE Clang Tools Extra

https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392