On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Ted Kremenek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 2008, at 10:38 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Ted Kremenek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 16, 2008, at 10:31 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote: >> >> Yeah, it seems a little confusing. But other names are worse: >>> AbstractVal, too long >>> AVal, like nonsense. >>> ProgVal, even farther way. >>> >> >> Yeah I agree. I also thought of "SymVal" for symbolic value, but that >> conflates with our use of symbols. I also thought of SemVal, for "semantic" >> value. This one is kind of nice because it reflects that we are reasoning >> about "semantics" as opposed to "syntax". >> > > What about "SVal"? "S" can represent many meanings: semantic value, > symbolic value, static-analysis value. And it's shorter. > > > Sounds good! For a second I thought it conflicted with something from > Lisp, but I was thinking of "s expressions." It's also the same number of > characters as RVal. > Then I'll do a new patch and commit?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
