On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:42:25 +0200, Pavel Labath wrote: > On 08/10/2019 10:14, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > 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. > > Which classes do you have in mind exactly? I know a lot of llvm *functions* > mimic similar std:: versions, but I can't think of any *classes* right now. > thinking here mainly of ADT classes like String/ArrayRef, Optional/Error,
llvm::StringRef vs. std::string, llvm::Optional vs. std::optional. I do not want to argue whether it is ambiguous or not but you asked for an +1/-1 opinion. Jan _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
