aaron.ballman 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>; ---------------- alexfh wrote: > 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. > 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 mean that within clang-tidy, anywhere we write `llvm::` today, we write `::llvm::` instead when we're talking about the global `llvm` namespace as opposed to the clang-tidy `llvm` namespace. > 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. That's my personal preference. I'm fine with the suggestion from @alexfh of using `llvm_project` instead, but we could also go with `llvm_proj`, `llvm_code`, `llvm_tidy`, etc. 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
