Argiris is right this convention is being widely used. I tend to agree with Mike though that if we are going to use non-obvious non-const reference parameters it would be great to make it explicit in the name. This has already caused inadvertent regressions.
Personally I often use pointer parameters for output argument in such situations (i.e. Expr**) to make the code more explicit; that is something of a matter of taste however. - Daniel On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 11, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Argiris Kirtzidis wrote: >> CheckCXXBooleanCondition follows the convention of other check >> functions >> (CheckInitializerTypes, CheckSingleInitializer, CheckCastTypes, etc) > > CheckFoo implies that the routine just Check for the condition Foo (to > me). Maybe we should pick a new naming scheme for these types of > routines. ConvertFoo at least implies an action. ConvertAndCheck, > though, that is a little wordy. > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
