4 ms·
Agreed, that's why I started by modifying clang. I think we can start dropping some of the crufty legacy in the C++ language without throwing it all out and sta
by compiler-devel 4y ago
Agreed, that's why I started by modifying clang. I think we can start dropping some of the crufty legacy in the C++ language without throwing it all out and starting again. While clang tidy could be used to check for a lot of these, I wanted to show that we could change the language directly and what that could look like.
- arinlen 4y ago> I think we can start dropping some of the crufty legacy in the C++ language (...) Do you have any concrete example of what you perceive as being "crufty legacy"?
- sanxiyn 4y agoC style casts, already prohibited by this patch, seems to be a good example.
- arinlen 4y ago> C style casts (...) Those are pretty much irrelevant since at least C++98, specially as not only are they used voluntarily but also under the hood they are already handled with explicit casts. Is this the best argument there is to break backwards compatibility?
- archi42 4y agoI hate writing proper C++ casts because C style is just shorter (e.g. (T)(foobar)), and have to force myself to write the whole invocation. So yeah, not even having the lazy option wouldn't be too bad :)