[cfe-commits] r56096 - in /cfe/trunk: lib/Sema/SemaStmt.cpp test/SemaCXX/condition.cpp
daniel at zuster.org
Thu Sep 11 14:29:58 PDT 2008
Argiris is right this convention is being widely used. I tend to agree
with Mike though that if we are going to use non-obvious non-const
reference parameters it would be great to make it explicit in the
name. This has already caused inadvertent regressions.
Personally I often use pointer parameters for output argument in such
situations (i.e. Expr**) to make the code more explicit; that is something
of a matter of taste however.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Mike Stump <mrs at apple.com> wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Argiris Kirtzidis wrote:
>> CheckCXXBooleanCondition follows the convention of other check
>> (CheckInitializerTypes, CheckSingleInitializer, CheckCastTypes, etc)
> CheckFoo implies that the routine just Check for the condition Foo (to
> me). Maybe we should pick a new naming scheme for these types of
> routines. ConvertFoo at least implies an action. ConvertAndCheck,
> though, that is a little wordy.
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
More information about the cfe-commits