[PATCH] D59251: [Documentation] Proposal for plan to change variable names

[Mehdi AMINI via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

mehdi_amini added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/Proposals/VariableNames.rst:144
+DominatorTree                dt
+Function                     f
+LoopInfo                     li
----------------
side note: I feel that single letter variable name are annoying (can't easily search in a text editor for example), I would rather use a short name like `func`.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/Proposals/VariableNames.rst:264
+resolving all conflicts by choosing their own version. This could be tested on
+the [SVE]_ fork.
+
----------------
This can be seen as an advantage for a mass rename: it is a "one-time cost" (that can be helped by clang-tidy), while a progressive renaming will lead to many spurious merge conflicts (and successful merge breaking the builds, or worse changing the runtime behavior!!) for downstream users for multiple years.
It seems be easier to deal with a one time merge that is NFC rather than having many semantic change patches along the years that create conflict on variable naming.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D59251/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D59251