> On Aug 20, 2014, at 11:58 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandl...@google.com> wrote: > > I'm glad to hear that there is a desire to improve this situation. > > However, I want to point out what seems like very flawed reasoning to me: > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Kate Stone <katherine_st...@apple.com > <mailto:katherine_st...@apple.com>> wrote: > We shouldn’t be arbitrarily different, and where we do differ we should be > able to describe the specific rationale (as I’m sure Greg will gladly do when > it comes to line length and naming conventions.) > > Unfortunately, if you're going to differ whenever you have a specific > rationale, it undermines the benefit of matching the LLVM style at all.
That’s not exactly what I was suggesting. It’s important to recognize that there is a substantial body of code already written. It’s impractical to spend time and energy reformatting and renaming everything. New code should fit in with old, but where it’s already inconsistent there’s an immediate opportunity to start conforming to LLVM’s established style for new contributions. So the goal isn’t to diverge whenever there’s a rationale for doing so, but to require that established style is documented sufficiently. I disagree that there’s no value in conforming to any of LLVM’s style guidelines. We should minimize the amount that someone needs to learn to contribute productively to both projects. Over time, with advocates involved in both, I would like to move toward more conformity – but that’s very much up to active contributors to determine. I happen to have some pull with the most active but I also have a lot of respect for the time and energy they have put into the project to date. Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com <mailto:k8st...@apple.com> Xcode Runtime Analysis Tools
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
