[PATCH] D57353: [clang-tidy] Add the abseil-duration-double-conversion check

[Hyrum Wright via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

hwright marked 2 inline comments as done.
hwright added inline comments.


================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil-duration-double-conversion.rst:20
+
+
+  // Original - Conversion to integer and back again
----------------
MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> hwright wrote:
> > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > Unnecessary empty line.
> > This is consistent with other documentation in this directory, such as `abseil-faster-strsplit-delimiter.rst`.
> In your example `abseil-faster-strsplit-delimiter.rst` , The double blank line in the html doesn't give much delineation between the before and after code and the next example.
> 
> {F7867869}
> 
> There probably isn't a convention per say (which is a shame), across the docs we do a mixture of different styles 
> 
> https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability-braces-around-statements.html
> https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/android-cloexec-accept.html
> https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/google-objc-function-naming.html
> 
> But there is a desire by some of the regular clang-tidy reviewers to make the documentation consistent
> 
> It may not be ideal but the "Before/After" style, that is used in `modernize-use-emplace`, `modernize-use-using`,`readability-braces-around-statements`,`readability-identifier-naming` and `readability-redundant-function-ptr-dereference` does help a little.
> 
> I'm not saying looks better, but I've added a couple of examples of formatting the strsplit example for comparison, feel free to ignore.
> 
> {F7867960}
> 
> {F7868028}
> 
> 
I like those examples!

Would it be reasonable to update all of the `abseil-duration-*` documentation in a separate pass, after this change is submitted?


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D57353/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D57353