> On Apr 26, 2017, at 1:44 PM, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 2017, at 4:24 PM, Michael Gottesman via swift-dev >> <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote: >> Hey everyone. >> >> I am currently doing some small fixes to SILSuccessor (adding some comments >> and fixing some issues exposed by LLVM upstream). As I read the code it >> became pretty apparent that the name is a misnomer... SILSuccessor is not >> just representing a successor, rather it is representing a whole CFG edge. >> This can be seen in how SILSuccessor is used to iterate over the >> predecessors of the block. >> >> With that in mind, I would like to rename SILSuccessor to SILCFGEdge. It >> will make it much clearer without knowing any context what this data >> structure is used for. >> >> Any objections, disagreements, flames, etc? > > It seems a little unnecessary to me. The successor relationship is an edge, > and all the edges of the local CFG are successor relationships. I guess it > looks a little funny that the edges into a block are represented by > "successors", but I think when you think about it it makes sense.
IMO this is more of an issue than something "looking funny". Using code named "successor" to look up the "predecessors" of a block is misleading and results in unnecessary cognitive overhead for the reader who has to "think about it" for it to make sense. > > "SILCFGEdge" is also not a very attractive name because of the two > abbreviations. If you had a nice alternative to "CFGEdge" that was less > biased to the beginning/end (like Successor/Predecessor are), I probably > wouldn't object. Ok. Maybe SILControlFlowEdge? > > John. _______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
