[Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?

[Konstantin Tokarev]

22.12.2015, 14:50, "Bubke Marco" <Marco.Bubke at theqtcompany.com>:
> Clazy is nice but it's under GPL so it's not possible to integrate it in the creator clang code model. But I think we need something like clazy for the clang code model too.

I see at least 2 options how to integrate clazy:

1. Include it as a separate GPL-only plugin, users of commercial edition will be able to install it separately. If that's too cumbersome to separate this checks from code model, guard them with ifdefs so Clang plugin could be compiled as GPL or as LGPL

2. Just use it as external tool and parse its output.


>
> ________________________________________
> From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dangelo at kdab.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:59 AM
> To: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] RFC: more liberal 'auto' rules?
>
> Il 22/12/2015 11:26, Ziller Eike ha scritto:
>>  So funny/unwanted behavior can occur both because one used the wrong explicit type, and because one used auto instead of an explicit type.
>
> These shortcomings of auto are recognized in the community, but yes,
> they're real and dangerous. Clazy [1] already has a warning for the
> danger of auto with QStringBuilder, I guess it can be extended to other
> cases.
>
> N4035 [2] proposes general purpose workarounds ("operator auto",
> specializations to std::decay, etc.) to address these issues.
>
>>  [1] https://github.com/KDE/clazy/blob/master/README
>>  [2] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4035.pdf
>
> My 2 c,
> --
> Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dangelo at kdab.com | Software Engineer
> KDAB (UK) Ltd., a KDAB Group company | Tel: UK +44-1625-809908
> KDAB - The Qt Experts
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin