MaskRay added a comment. In D96203#2548529 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96203#2548529>, @echristo wrote:
> In D96203#2548495 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96203#2548495>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D96203#2548471 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96203#2548471>, @mibintc wrote: >> >>> In D96203#2546856 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96203#2546856>, @aaron.ballman >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you for working on this! >>>> >>>>> This changes the option names that include substring blacklist to >>>>> blocklist. >>>> >>>> I think this change works in some places, but in other places we say >>>> things like "blocklisted" which feels a bit awkward. I don't super love >>>> the name `blocklist`, but I don't super hate it either. All the >>>> alternative names I come up with aren't really great either, like >>>> `UnsanitiziedEntities` or `IgnoredObjects`. Maybe someone will have a >>>> better idea here than me, but I do think the current name is an >>>> improvement over the old name. >>> >>> There is a pre-existing patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D82244 using block >>> and allow, that's why I chose blocklist. Although going in cold I would >>> prefer to use allow and deny, and block seems to me a little like cheating >>> (too similar to black). >> >> That was my concern as well -- I can easily imagine someone seeing >> "blocklisted" and thinking it was a typo for "blacklisted" and undoing the >> change to comments with an NFC change. >> >>> However I can "disagree and commit" (cf. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disagree_and_commit) with this choice of >>> wording. I can search out the awkward Blocklisted and come up with >>> different phrasing in the prose, but I think names in the program should >>> use blocklist so that they can be easily connected to the option name for >>> future maintainers of llvm. I'll check this. >> >> I agree that the frontend option names and the internal variable names need >> to connect to one another, so if we pick a new term, it should be used >> consistently. I'd be mildly happier with a better term than blocklist, but I >> can live with that name too. > > FWIW I would prefer denylist as well. (Also uses of whitelist should be > allowlist, but also incremental :) > > -eric I can change D82244 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82244> used blocklist to denylist . If there is no need for compatibility, I'll just replace the strings. If there is need for compatibility, I can make blocklist an alias. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96203/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96203 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
