Re: Making C function declaration parameter names consistent with corresponding definition names

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> It's possible to configure the clang-tidy tooling to tolerate various
> inconsistencies, below some kind of threshold -- it is totally
> customizable. But I think that a strict, simple rule is the way to go
> here.

Agreed; I see no need to tolerate any inconsistency.

> (Though without creating busy work for committers that don't
> want to use clang-tidy all the time.)

Yeah. I'd be inclined to handle it about like cpluspluscheck:
provide a script that people can run from time to time, but
don't insist that it's a commit-blocker. (I wouldn't be unhappy
to see the cfbot include this in its compiler warnings suite,
though, once we get rid of the existing instances.)

regards, tom lane