orbitcowboy

> IMO `exhaustive` need to be the default so somebody running this the first time does not get any warnings about this. If they have issues with the run-time then...

> Can you please let me know how they will learn about --check-level=normal when they have performance issues? Would we produce a information message in this situation? By reading the...

FYI: The _T macro from wxwidgets is defined here: https://docs.wxwidgets.org/3.0/group__group__funcmacro__string.html

> I will still wait for feedback from @pfultz2 as I have no idea if this was intentional or not. I vote to merge this because it is good practice...

> I still want to re-phrase the messages. They feel clunky. > > Also the co-author is somehow not working. Sorry, I accidentily switched it from draft

> `tok->next()->link()` to `tok->linkAt(1)` while we are at it. Good idea, added this rule in accordance.

> We might also change `tok->next()->link()` to `tok->linkAt(1)` while we are at it. This rule provides a bunch of results. I'll provide a seperate PR (https://github.com/danmar/cppcheck/pull/6476) to fix them. The...

> > Are you suggesting to drop the feature as a whole? > > yes personally I would like to drop this feature. I believe it is deprecated since about...

@danmar Thanks for your comments. Test cases are now updated in accordance. It's good that you have provided these additional case, where (i +j) are summed up. It turned out...

> I guess it was intended to allow developers to check their code without having the `CHECK_INTERNAL` flag set. But the CI does that anyway. @orbitcowboy Do you actually use...