<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Mar 8, 2013, at 6:25 PM, Richard Smith <<a href="mailto:richard@metafoo.co.uk">richard@metafoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite">On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, John McCall <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rjmccall@apple.com" target="_blank">rjmccall@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class="h5"><div><div>On Mar 8, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Chandler Carruth <<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com" target="_blank">chandlerc@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM, John McCall <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rjmccall@apple.com" target="_blank">rjmccall@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>Oh, I must have.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>Several more of your recent commits have converted variables from the InitialCaps style required by the coding standard to an initialLowercase form.</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div><br><div>Oh, did that get formalized? That's unfortunate for quite a few reasons. Maybe LLVM is consistent about it, but Clang's code base is pretty far from that, particularly in IR-gen.</div>
</blockquote></div><br>It did, and it is much more consistent in LLVM and other parts of Clang. Not really endorsing it, but I figure we should all suffer through it or get Chris to change it. ;]</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div><div>How's that reformatting tool coming along? :)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I believe a tool to "fix" variable capitalization already exists, maybe Manuel can confirm that?</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>I mean, there's also mass inconsistency in LLVM and Clang about capitalization of methods. Or rather, there isn't: I would estimate that LLVM and Clang are ~90% consistent with a convention of capitalizing the first letter in a method name, and (1) that also contradicts the style guide and (2) it actually *matters* because everybody using that method has to be aware of it.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>[... some quick-and-dirty regexps later...]</div><div><br></div><div>In include/llvm: 6275 methods starting [a-z], 1491 methods starting [A-Z]</div><div>In include/clang: 5176 methods starting [a-z], 2884 methods starting [A-Z]</div>
<div><br></div><div>So it looks like we're more consistent with the coding standard than with the opposite convention in our public interfaces. In headers in clang's lib/, we're somewhat the other way around: 438 starting [a-z], 669 starting [A-Z], and specifically in clang's lib/CodeGen, we have 244 [a-z], 345 [A-Z].</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmm. Raw counts here are going to be dominated by get/set/is methods, which (1) we're very consistent about lowercasing but (2) are a huge exception. "Action" methods, like those that dominate Sema, Parser, CGF, and CGM, are overwhelmingly uppercased — with CGF and CGM being less consistent, but only because I'm personally okay with inconsistency if it means we're making progress — a "better slouching towards heaven than marching heads-high to hell" sort of thing, which I don't think is how sabre sees it.</div><div><br></div><div>LLVM uses free functions more than we do, and they're also basically universally uppercased.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>These numbers aren't entirely accurate, since they don't cover the vast numbers of Visit*, Traverse*, and Transform* functions we generate with xmacros.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I don't know why that would change the count, actually — one of them apiece counts as source code.</div><div> </div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>It seems clear to me that we're going to have a red letter day sooner or later where we rename a bunch of LLVM APIs, and if we do that, we should also change the local variable convention to something that LLVM contributors don't essentially universally dislike.</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><div>Yes, I agree. I vaguely recall being told that the sticking point on this in the past was a worry about it degrading the usefulness of tools like 'svn annotate'. If we're no longer concerned about that, perhaps it's time to fix this once and for all.</div>
</blockquote></div><br><div>This is unfortunately still a concern.</div><div><br></div><div>John.</div></body></html>