ivanmurashko wrote:
> Moreover I thought about the approach that you currently emphasize "owning" > in every name and comment where you speak about smart pointers. As this is > not a distinguishing feature of these functions (you never interact with > non-owning smart pointers) and these function names tend to be very long, I > think it would be better to omit "owning" from these names. It is enough to > mention the exclusion of `weak_ptr` in a single comment (next to the function > that recognizes the names of the smart pointer classes). I eliminated the "owning" word in commit 692db9e74c0cd11e24d01777d28849151250edd7 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/152751 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
