[llvm-dev] Variable names rule (original) (raw)

JD Jones via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Feb 4 12:03:09 PST 2019

Hi Tim,

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. Are you maybe thinking that if the identifiers were tagged to specify scope, people would still be trying to use acronyms or single letters? So that, what in future code might be F, would instead be f and that would be worse than f or s_f? I was thinking instead F would be (for new or modified code) _function or _fnctn or _func (as an object of type Function). Again, sorry -- I don't see how prepended underscore is worse than an appended one. Could you supply some examples, please?

-----Original Message----- From: Tim Northover [mailto:t.p.northover at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 1:37 PM To: JD Jones <jjones at prc-hsv.com> Cc: Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>; clattner at nondot.org; Michael Platings <Michael.Platings at arm.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; nd <nd at arm.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Variable names rule

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 17:20, JD Jones via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

· Non-static data members: (This was allowed by the C++ standard I last read. It’s that is reserved)

This is about the one thing I'd be truly unhappy to see us adopt (for any situation). I think the interaction with acronyms is just too pathological. You get a really weird identifier or UB, possibly without even knowing it.

Tim.

-- This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain Paragon Research Corporation (PRC) confidential or privileged information.  Use or distribution of such confidential information is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of PRC.  If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the message and attachments from your computer.

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list