[clang-tools-extra] Enforce SL.con.3: Add check to replace operator[] with at() [Cont.] (PR #95220)

[Congcong Cai via cfe-commits]

Paul =?utf-8?q?Heidekrüger?= <paul.heidekrueger at tum.de>,
Paul =?utf-8?q?Heidekrüger?= <paul.heidekrueger at tum.de>,
Paul =?utf-8?q?Heidekrüger?= <paul.heidekrueger at tum.de>,
Paul =?utf-8?q?Heidekrüger?= <paul.heidekrueger at tum.de>,
Paul =?utf-8?q?Heidekrüger?= <paul.heidekrueger at tum.de>,
Paul =?utf-8?q?Heidekrüger?= <paul.heidekrueger at tum.de>,
Paul =?utf-8?q?Heidekrüger?= <paul.heidekrueger at tum.de>,
Paul =?utf-8?q?Heidekrüger?= <paul.heidekrueger at tum.de>
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <llvm.org/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95220 at github.com>


HerrCai0907 wrote:

> > Rename the analysis from AvoidBoundsErrorsCheck to PreferAtOverSubscriptOperatorCheck as requested by @PiotrZSL
> 
> I'm strongly opposed to this, because it's conflating "how to solve the problem" with "what the problem is".
> 
> If we want to focus on the problem, the check could be named "AvoidSubscriptOperator". This way, the solution to the problem is open for users to decide. I still think "AvoidBoundErrors" is the best name since it maps exactly to what the guidelines call it.

I also agree `AvoidBoundErrors` is a better name since it can keep consistency with original guidelines.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95220