[PATCH] Add limitations to loop convert user doc

Sean Silva silvas at purdue.edu
Thu Mar 21 17:00:59 PDT 2013

Comment at: docs/LoopConvertTransform.rst:210
@@ +209,3 @@
+Similarly, if ``operator->()`` was overloaded to have side effects, such as
+logging, the semantics will change. In the original loop we may have used the
+arrow operator to dereference the iterator to call a member. This is no longer
Edwin Vane wrote:
> Try to avoid the "royal we". The obvious fix, to use passive voice, should also be avoided if possible. Try something like:
> If the iterator's arrow operator was used in the original loop the dot operator of a container element will be used instead due to the implicit dereference as part of the range-based for loop.
Honestly I would just kill this sentence ("In the original loop ...") since it is just a vague example: a precise example is given just below.

Also, LLVM has many non-native english speakers in its community, so prefer to always say `operator->` instead of  "the arrow operator" or "operator arrow". Everybody reading this documentation understands code, but not everybody will necessarily make the connection (or it will not be immediate) between the various grammatical variations of saying "operator arrow" and the concept. The same goes for referring to any other constructs that have an exact way to refer to them in code.


More information about the cfe-commits mailing list