On Jun 29, 2012, at 2:33 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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). Frankly, I'd rather just wait a bit longer (6 months or a year), then allow all of LLVM to migrate to some reasonably-portable subset of C++11. - Doug _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
