alexfh added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/utils/HeaderFileExtensionsUtils.h:21 -typedef llvm::SmallSet<llvm::StringRef, 5> HeaderFileExtensionsSet; +using HeaderFileExtensionsSet = SmallSet<StringRef, 5>; ---------------- hintonda wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > hintonda wrote: > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > I do not like that we're removing the namespace qualifier here. I would > > > > prefer to leave it as `::llvm::SmallSet<::llvm::StringRef, 5>` if there > > > > is a namespace clash. > > > Other than aesthetics, the reason I don't like the idea of fully scoping > > > these types, at least without a comment, is that the error is triggered > > > by some other code gets included first, and has nothing to do with this > > > code -- there's nothing actually wrong with the original code. So it > > > could/would be confusing for a reader later on wondering why you needed > > > to fully scope these types, and not others. > > I would argue that the original code is wrong to not use fully-qualified > > namespace specifiers. The issue is that we have two different namespaces > > named `llvm` and have gotten away with poor namespace hygiene by accident. > > Either we should rename the clang-tidy `llvm` namespace to something that > > does not conflict, or we should consistently use fully-qualified namespace > > specifiers when in clang-tidy and needing to refer to an `llvm` namespace > > explicitly. > > > > I think this patch goes in the wrong direction by making it easier to limp > > along with poor namespace hygiene. > By fully qualified, do you mean appending the global namespace, `::` to > everything? I actually like using `llvm::`, but `::llvm::` is odd and needs > explanation. > > I'd be happy to abandon this change and instead rename the > `clang::tidy::llvm` to `clang::tidy::something_else`, if that's what the > community would prefer. > Aaron, you have a very good point. We also have a more recent example of a good namespace hygiene in clang-tidy code: the `abseil` module is not called `absl` mainly to "avoid collisions with a well-known top-level namespace" (https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Namespace_Names). If we can rename the llvm module to something reasonable ("llvm_project"?) without breaking the naming invariants (used by the add_new_check.py script, for example), it would be a much better solution. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60151/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60151 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
