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

via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Feb 13 08:52:28 PST 2019

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

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list