[PATCH] D116478: [clang-tidy] A comma-separated list of the names of functions or methods to be considered as not having side-effects

[Carlos Galvez via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

carlosgalvezp added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:141
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+- Added a setting ``bugprone-assert-side-effect.FunctionExceptions`` for
+  a comma-separated list of the names of functions or methods to be considered
----------------
carlosgalvezp wrote:
> carlosgalvezp wrote:
> > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > carlosgalvezp wrote:
> > > > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > > > Please separate with newline and use single back-ticks for options.
> > > > I introduced those double backticks due to review comments. As it turns out, single backticks are only for links, not for formatted text. Should they be brought back?
> > > Double back-ticks are for language constructs, single back-ticks for options, tool names, etc.
> > Hm, I see. I think visually it's much more helpful to have options rendered as formatted code (just like you'd see them in the .clang-tidy file in a code editor) instead of in italic, which is what is rendered with single backticks.
> Also note that the main clang-tidy doc page uses doble backticks for options, not just language constructs, so I think it would be good to keep consistency with that:
> 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/llvm/llvm-project/main/clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/index.rst
> 
> Single backticks are used there only for links and together with the `:program:` keyword.
Unless there's some documented style convention that says otherwise, of course. I haven't found anything in the [[ https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html | LLVM Coding Standards ]].


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D116478/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D116478