[PATCH] D41458: [libc++][C++17] Elementary string conversions for integral types

[Arthur O'Dwyer via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

Quuxplusone added inline comments.


================
Comment at: include/charconv:244
+    static _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY char const*
+    read(char const* __p, char const* __ep, type& __a, type& __b)
+    {
----------------
mclow.lists wrote:
> lichray wrote:
> > mclow.lists wrote:
> > > Same comment as above about `read` and `inner_product` - they need to be "ugly names"
> > Unlike `traits` which is a template parameter name in the standard, `read` and `inner_product` are function names in the standard, which means the users cannot make a macro for them (and there is no guarantee about what name you make **not** get by including certain headers), so we don't need to use ugly names here, am I right?
> I understand your reasoning, but I don't agree. 
> 
> Just last month, I had to rename a function in `vector` from `allocate` to `__vallocate` because it confused our "is this an allocator" detection. The function in question was private, so it shouldn't have mattered, but GCC has a bug where sometimes it partially ignores access restrictions in non-deduced contexts, and then throws a hard error when it comes back to a different context. The easiest workaround was to rename the function in `vector`.
> 
> Since then, I've been leery of public names that match others. This is pretty obscure, since it's in a private namespace, but I'd feel better if they were `__read` and `__inner_product`.
> 
FWIW, +1 to ugly names. Even if the un-ugly code is "technically not broken yet", and besides the technical reason Marshall gives,
(1) it's nice that libc++ has style rules and sticks to them, precisely to *avoid* bikeshedding the name of every private member in the world;
(2) just because users can't `#define read write` doesn't mean they *won't* do it. I would actually be extremely surprised if `read` were *not* defined as a macro somewhere inside `<windows.h>`. :)

See also: "should this function call be `_VSTD::`-qualified?" Sometimes the answer is technically "no", but stylistically "yes", precisely to indicate that we *don't* intend for it to be an ADL customization point. Consistent style leads to maintainability.


Repository:
  rCXX libc++

https://reviews.llvm.org/D41458