On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:39:51 +0200, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev wrote: > some llvm classes, are so well-known and widely used, that qualifying them > with "llvm::" serves no useful purpose and only adds visual noise. I'm > thinking here mainly of ADT classes like String/ArrayRef, Optional/Error, > etc. I propose we stop explicitly qualifying these classes. ... > What do you think?
If I should say something I would keep llvm::. My reason: The LLVM types are in many cases emulating classes adopted in future C++ standards and I find more clear llvm:: vs. std:: than "" vs. std::. Moreover when std:: is commonly omitted in other projects. Jan _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
