svenvh added a comment.

In D96771#2626507 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96771#2626507>, @Anastasia wrote:

> I had a second thought about the extension name and I realized that the 
> reason why I initially wanted to use `clcpp` is that it aligns better with 
> `clc++` which is used in `-cl-std`. Even though from the RFC the preference 
> was towards `cppcl` it felt like there was no objection to `clcpp` either. So 
> I just want to check one last time whether it would make sense to align with 
> `clc++` and use `clcpp`. Perhaps, it make clang interface a bit more 
> inconsistent?

That is a good point, in my opinion aligning with the `-cl-std` flag is a good 
reason to go for `.clcpp`.  I would recommend mentioning this on the RfC thread 
too, to ensure that people who suggested a slight preference for the other 
extension are okay with `.clcpp` too.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D96771/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D96771

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to