EricWF added a comment.
+1 for moving this file to LLVM's internal style.
================
Comment at: src/cxa_demangle.cpp:44
+class string_ref
+{
----------------
dexonsmith wrote:
> mehdi_amini wrote:
> > dexonsmith wrote:
> > > erik.pilkington wrote:
> > > > mehdi_amini wrote:
> > > > > If this is supposed to be *the* ultimate LLVM demangler, can we
> > > > > follow LLVM coding standard?
> > > > I would like if this followed LLVM conventions too, but this file is
> > > > already written following this style and leaving it in some middle
> > > > state would be ugly. All of libcxx[abi] follows this convention too, so
> > > > this isn't a problem that is isolated to this file.
> > > I agree. I'd be fine with clang-formatting the entire project, but that
> > > seems independent from this change.
> > I'm not talking about pure "clang-format" but also naming for instance.
> >
> > > I would like if this followed LLVM conventions too, but this file is
> > > already written following this style and leaving it in some middle state
> > > would be ugly.
> >
> > Right, but in the meantime you're adding a significant amount of "debt".
> >
> > > All of libcxx[abi] follows this convention too, so this isn't a problem
> > > that is isolated to this file.
> >
> > This file is "special": it is shared (duplicated...) with LLVM.
> >
> This is a patch for libcxxabi. Duplicating the file in LLVM is what created
> technical debt, and that file has already diverged from libcxxabi. That's
> where the bug is.
>
> AFAICT, there is no requirement for LLVM subprojects to use LLVM naming
> schemes, and since libcxx and libcxxabi are implementing STL facilities, it's
> reasonable for them to use STL naming conventions (even in private
> implementations that aren't exposed to users).
>
> (It would also be reasonable to follow LLVM naming conventions in private
> implementations, but that's not the current practice, and it would certainly
> inhibit code readability here to do so just for one type.)
>
> Perhaps a compromise would be to rename `string_ref` to `string_view`, so
> that it sounds more like the equivalent STL type than the equivalent LLVM
> type.
>
> @mclow.lists, would you like to weigh in as code owner here? Should the
> naming scheme for new types in libcxxabi private implementations follow LLVM
> coding conventions, or libcxxabi coding conventions?
> I'm not talking about pure "clang-format" but also naming for instance.
+1 to that.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35159
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
