carlosgalvezp added a comment. In D139919#3991250 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139919#3991250>, @MaskRay wrote:
> In D139919#3991242 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139919#3991242>, @carlosgalvezp > wrote: > >> AFAIK it's preferred to use the LLVM types instead of the Standard types: >> >>> When both C++ and the LLVM support libraries provide similar functionality, >>> and there isn’t a specific reason to favor the C++ implementation, it is >>> generally preferable to use the LLVM library >> >> https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#c-standard-library > > This should be read with a grain of salt. For example, it apparently doesn't > apply to things are being deprecated. `llvm::Optional` is being actively > removed and many of its functions are deprecated for eventual removal. A > large portion of the other components in llvm-project have migrated. See > https://discourse.llvm.org/t/deprecating-llvm-optional-x-hasvalue-getvalue-getvalueor/63716 Awesome, I wasn't aware. Thanks for the clarification! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139919/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139919 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
