mclow.lists added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/charconv:244
+ static _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY char const*
+ read(char const* __p, char const* __ep, type& __a, type& __b)
+ {
----------------
lichray wrote:
> mclow.lists wrote:
> > Same comment as above about `read` and `inner_product` - they need to be
> > "ugly names"
> Unlike `traits` which is a template parameter name in the standard, `read`
> and `inner_product` are function names in the standard, which means the users
> cannot make a macro for them (and there is no guarantee about what name you
> make **not** get by including certain headers), so we don't need to use ugly
> names here, am I right?
I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree.
Just last month, I had to rename a function in `vector` from `allocate` to
`__vallocate` because it confused our "is this an allocator" detection. The
function in question was private, so it shouldn't have mattered, but GCC has a
bug where sometimes it partially ignores access restrictions in non-deduced
contexts, and then throws a hard error when it comes back to a different
context. The easiest workaround was to rename the function in `vector`.
Since then, I've been leery of public names that match others. This is pretty
obscure, since it's in a private namespace, but I'd feel better if they were
`__read` and `__inner_product`.
Repository:
rCXX libc++
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41458
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
