[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] C++11 reverse iterators (was C++11 is here) (original) (raw)

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Mon Mar 3 10:29:17 PST 2014

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:

In the best case 'get' doesn't really add any meaning, and in the worst case it is actively misleading

It's getting the range though, just like Function::getArgumentList() returns the argument list.

I really disagree (and I disagree with getArgumentList for the same reason).

getFoo should return something with value semantics (even if its a const reference to delay the copy). setFoo should directly mutate something.

What we're really doing is making the equivalent of a "member-like accessor" method.

For example, you might iterate over operands, and assign through the iterator to mutate them. Really, these operate as range-views over some sequence. It seems particularly easy to teach foobegin(), fooend() -> foos() as well.

That's a very objective-c thing to do :-), they use the pattern foo() and setFoo() for the getter and setter, respectively (and the naming is baked into the property model). I don't feel strongly against it, but we pretty consistently use the Java style 'get' prefix everywhere else.

If we have a setFoo, then I'm with you we should have a value-semantic getFoo. But we have just plain "op_begin" and "op_end" and I think that makes sense to extend to a range adaptor "operands". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140303/dfe89509/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list