On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2012, at 2:29 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Our support for generating code on Windows is still too poor to make this > something we depend on. > > Unless someone has a Tool that maps variadic templates down to C++03 ;)
Ah, indeed. Windows. So we'd be limited to MSVC's support (as lld is) which wouldn't solve this specific issue, unfortunately. Still, potentially makes all this tooling, matcher, and C++11 migration stuff able to use the MSVC C++11 features (yay rvalue references at least). - David _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
