wchilders added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Sema/DeclSpec.h:1762 }; +using FDK = FunctionDefinitionKind; ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > rsmith wrote: > > I don't think it's OK to have an initialism like this in the `clang` > > namespace scope -- generally-speaking, the larger the scope of a name, the > > longer and more descriptive the name needs to be. Is spelling out the full > > name of the enumeration everywhere it appears unacceptably verbose? > That will change uses like this: > ``` > D.setFunctionDefinitionKind(FDK::Definition); > ``` > into > ``` > D.setFunctionDefinitionKind(FunctionDefinitionKind::Definition); > ``` > which repeats the enumeration name twice (once for the function and once for > the enumerator) and is rather unfortunate. I'm not certain it's more > unfortunate than putting an initialism into the `clang` namespace though. Lost my original comment... I guess I still don't know how to use Phabricator :( I see both arguments here, I think I agree more with @rsmith as I generally prefer less "mental indirection"/clarity over less typing. That said, there's also a potential middle ground here. There is a fair bit of inconsistency in enum naming, looking at `Specifiers.h` for instance, sometimes "Specifier" is spelled "Specifier" and other times it's spelled "Spec" or "Specifiers" (and actually looking closer, it doesn't appear that `TypeSpecifiersPipe` is ever used). Perhaps it would be good to standardize the short names, and perhaps use something like `FnDefKind` or `FunctionDefKind` -- both of which are notably shortly, but still reasonably understandable and specific names. Just a thought :) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91035/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91035 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
