Hey Pavel, Sounds like a good idea. I don't have a strong opinion on this matter, but I'm always in favor of improving readability.
Cheers, Jonas On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:38 AM Pavel Labath via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > some llvm classes, are so well-known and widely used, that qualifying > them with "llvm::" serves no useful purpose and only adds visual noise. > I'm thinking here mainly of ADT classes like String/ArrayRef, > Optional/Error, etc. I propose we stop explicitly qualifying these classes. > > We can implement this proposal the same way as clang solved the same > problem, which is by creating a special LLVM.h > < > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/master/include/clang/Basic/LLVM.h> > > header in the Utility library. This header would adopt these classes > into the lldb_private namespace via a series of forward and "using" > declarations. > > I think clang's LLVM.h is contains a well-balanced collection of adopted > classes, and it should cover the most widely-used classes in lldb too, > so I propose we use that as a starting point. > > What do you think? > > regards, > pavel > > PS: I'm not proposing any wholesale removal of "llvm::" qualifiers from > these types, though I may do some smaller-scale removals if I'm about to > substantially modify a file. > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev