On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> CamelCase is fine for these. I notice that there's some inconsistency with >> 'has' names, e.g., hasDescendant vs. HasType. > > > Update: Chandler voted for using llvm coding style (and I agree). The > argument is that the callable classes we have are just classes to work > around missing variadic templates and that they will become functions anyway > once we get C++11 into llvm (in a future, far, far away).
Actually - this is a layer on top of Clang the compiler, so why wouldn't it just use C++11? It doesn't have the same constraints of buildability with host compilers as the compiler does - you can always just compile this with Clang. - David _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
