lichray marked 2 inline comments as done.
lichray 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)
+ {
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> mclow.lists wrote:
> > 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`.
> >
> FWIW, +1 to ugly names. Even if the un-ugly code is "technically not broken
> yet", and besides the technical reason Marshall gives,
> (1) it's nice that libc++ has style rules and sticks to them, precisely to
> *avoid* bikeshedding the name of every private member in the world;
> (2) just because users can't `#define read write` doesn't mean they *won't*
> do it. I would actually be extremely surprised if `read` were *not* defined
> as a macro somewhere inside `<windows.h>`. :)
>
> See also: "should this function call be `_VSTD::`-qualified?" Sometimes the
> answer is technically "no", but stylistically "yes", precisely to indicate
> that we *don't* intend for it to be an ADL customization point. Consistent
> style leads to maintainability.
`read` is a function decl in `<io.h>`, not redefined in other forms in
`<windows.h>`.
================
Comment at: test/support/charconv_test_helpers.h:40
+constexpr bool
+_fits_in(T, true_type /* non-narrowing*/, ...)
+{
----------------
mclow.lists wrote:
> We don't need to use ugly names here in the test suite.
>
Err, it's not? Just an impl version of `fits_in` (without the _ prefix).
Repository:
rCXX libc++
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41458
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
