[llvm-dev] changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase (original) (raw)

Zachary Turner via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Feb 14 08:02:47 PST 2019

fwiw, LLDB also uses m_ for member variables, so if we were to adopt an m prefix, then in conjunction with lowercase_underscore the entire codebase would be conforming.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:02 AM Nemanja Ivanovic <nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> wrote:

I have to agree with Paul that I think it is rather useful to have a naming convention that distinguishes class members from locals, etc. I'm not sure what that would look like, whether an m prefix for data members would be something others would entertain, but something that makes it clear would probably be useful. To use Paul's example, I think that mTheStuff vs. TheStuff makes it super easy to visually identify what this is. I imagine this wasn't mentioned in this thread or previously adopted because of some good reason I am not aware of. A more minor point about underscores vs camel case - what I like about camel case is that it generally keeps my fingers on the 3 rows of the keyboard I use the most. From an ergonomics perspective, I find typing a whole lot of underscores a bit unnatural. So since I find camel case easier to type and equally as readable, I would favour it over underscores.

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:03 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <_ _llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

There is of course some amount of llvm and clang code which already uses initialLowerCaseNames for variable names too, contrary to the style guide. I don't know how to easily quantify how much.

E.g. ParseGNUAttributes in clang/include/clang/Parse/Parser.h is one I noticed.

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:49 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <_ _llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: I want to reiterate the benefit that underscorenames would bring. To be clear it's not my favorite style, but it does have a very concrete advantage which is that we have a very large subproject already using it. it doesn't make sense to do a purely aesthetic move that not everyone is going to agree on anyway, when we could do one with actual tangible value. On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:52 AM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:

Chandler wrote:

> FWIW, I'm pretty strongly opposed to humbleCamelCase. We already use that > style so something else. Presumably you are equally opposed to RegularCamelCase, because we already use that style for something else. But really, objecting on the grounds that a given style is already used for function names is really a very weak argument. IME function names are incredibly hard to confuse with anything else, because they always have surrounding syntactic context. Given TheStuff->fooBar().getThingy() is it even conceivable that you might not instantly get that fooBar and getThingy are methods? Therefore, using the same convention for some other kind of name is Not Confusing. OTOH, TheStuff comes out of nowhere with no clues to its origin, and that is a barrier to code-reading IME. Even renaming it to stuff would help approximately zero percent. Parameter? Local? Class member? Global? LLVM has incredibly few globals for other reasons, but using the same convention for locals and class members is a real problem for code-reading, especially code operating in methods for classes you're not super familiar with. I acknowledge that the current RFC doesn't propose a member naming convention different from other variables, but IMO it really ought to. That is the distinction that would really help in reading unfamiliar code. --paulr

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190214/f72da2d2/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list