Will be good idea to have modernize check which could replace traditional operators representations with alternative ones: && with and, || with or, etc. See http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/operator_alternative.
Why? Alternative tokens are only needed for the poor developers who have difficulties entering some characters (&|^~{}[]) due to the limitations of their environment. I have never seen a recommendation to use them in normal circumstances, and I would certainly refrain from suggesting their use as a style rule.
(In reply to comment #1) > Why? Alternative tokens are only needed for the poor developers who have > difficulties entering some characters (&|^~{}[]) due to the limitations of > their environment. I have never seen a recommendation to use them in normal > circumstances, and I would certainly refrain from suggesting their use as a > style rule. I don't advocating use one or other style. For example, similar decision to use alternative names was made in project I'm working on at the end of 1980s in form of C macros. Decision to use one or other style should be left for developers of particular project. Check will just help to maintain consistency.
The question is whether there are projects/teams that are going to benefit from this proposed check. FWIW, if someone gets to implement this, it seems sensible to implement conversion in both directions (controlled by an option): to alternative tokens and to classic operators.
*** Bug 32125 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
> I have never seen a recommendation to use them in normal circumstances, and I would certainly refrain from suggesting their use as a style rule. Some people consider them more readable, and recommend them, for example: http://stackoverflow.com/a/1704050/1422197 No need to share the opinion, but that some people do prefer them is a fact.
The other direction of this transformations is now proposed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D31308.