sammccall added a comment. In D116387#3230893 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116387#3230893>, @hokein wrote:
> Agree that __ reserved names are ugly, but I'm not sure this is a great > improvement. > > I played around the patch locally, and found the new behavior being confused > in some cases (mostly inconsistencies between deuglified places vs uglified > places), and seems hard for readers to predict it: Agree, but I don't think it needs to be predictable, it's enough that the output can be understood. (e.g. I never particularly noticed *which* identifiers in stdlib were ugly, just that the thing overall was hard to read). i.e. if we remove the underscores half the time, that seems like a win. > - inconsistency with doc-comment which still uses the __ name (this seems > hard to fix) > > F21562126: image.png <https://reviews.llvm.org/F21562126> Yes :-( However I don't think a human reader is likely to be confused by this. > - the print type in hover still uses __name (maybe this is expected, or we > could introduce a `reserved` field in hover, like `template-type-param Tp > (reserved)`) > > F21562145: image.png <https://reviews.llvm.org/F21562145> This is an oversight, I'll fix this. > - the deuglified behavior is triggered on (template/function) parameters, > which means we have uglified name for `void foo(_ReservedClass& abc)` vs > deuglified name for `template<typename _ReservedClass> void > foo(_ReservedClass& abc)` (expanding the scope could fix that, but it doesn't > seem something we want to do) This is deliberate: `_ReservedClass` is part of the API of `foo`, so renaming it is a semantic change. I don't this change increases the amount of inconsistency: today we have`vector` vs `push_back` vs `_ReservedClass` vs `_Tp`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D116387/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D116387 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
