On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mar 8, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Oh, I must have. >>> >>> Several more of your recent commits have converted variables from the >>> InitialCaps style required by the coding standard to an initialLowercase >>> form. >>> >>> >>> Oh, did that get formalized? That's unfortunate for quite a few >>> reasons. Maybe LLVM is consistent about it, but Clang's code base is >>> pretty far from that, particularly in IR-gen. >>> >> >> It did, and it is much more consistent in LLVM and other parts of Clang. >> Not really endorsing it, but I figure we should all suffer through it or >> get Chris to change it. ;] >> >> >> How's that reformatting tool coming along? :) >> > > I believe a tool to "fix" variable capitalization already exists, maybe > Manuel can confirm that? > Nope, it doesn't. But if Chris ever changes his opinion on churn (assuming we already all agree that that's the limiting factor), I will gladly hack one up in a day :P > > I mean, there's also mass inconsistency in LLVM and Clang about >> capitalization of methods. Or rather, there isn't: I would estimate that >> LLVM and Clang are ~90% consistent with a convention of capitalizing the >> first letter in a method name, and (1) that also contradicts the style >> guide and (2) it actually *matters* because everybody using that method has >> to be aware of it. >> > > [... some quick-and-dirty regexps later...] > > In include/llvm: 6275 methods starting [a-z], 1491 methods starting [A-Z] > In include/clang: 5176 methods starting [a-z], 2884 methods starting [A-Z] > > So it looks like we're more consistent with the coding standard than with > the opposite convention in our public interfaces. In headers in clang's > lib/, we're somewhat the other way around: 438 starting [a-z], 669 starting > [A-Z], and specifically in clang's lib/CodeGen, we have 244 [a-z], 345 > [A-Z]. > > These numbers aren't entirely accurate, since they don't cover the vast > numbers of Visit*, Traverse*, and Transform* functions we generate with > xmacros. > > >> It seems clear to me that we're going to have a red letter day sooner or >> later where we rename a bunch of LLVM APIs, and if we do that, we should >> also change the local variable convention to something that LLVM >> contributors don't essentially universally dislike. >> > > Yes, I agree. I vaguely recall being told that the sticking point on this > in the past was a worry about it degrading the usefulness of tools like > 'svn annotate'. If we're no longer concerned about that, perhaps it's time > to fix this once and for all. >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
