[llvm-dev] RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase

[Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 23:20, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> I don't care about the convention, but I'm really not sure it's worth the churn which would result in the code base.  The hurtle which needs cleared here is not "is it a better naming style", but "is the disruption implied by changing to the new convention justified".  To be clear, not opposed, just hesitant.

I have the same concern. The whole advantage of a common coding
convention is consistency. There are exceptions, but the vast majority
of LLVM and Clang code I've read does indeed stick to the current
CamelCase convention. Unless there's a plan for conversion then the
practical impact of the naming convention change is that the codebase
will be a muddle of mixed conventions for years. That seems like a
regression, even if camelBack is a better convention.

On a more practical note, if the intent is to move to camelBack I
think it would be worth adding an example to the coding standard for
handling an acronym. e.g. is it the intent that TTI would become tti.

Best,

Alex