[llvm-dev] [docs][RFC] Style for "end namespace" comments

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

I agree with James.  Both are reasonable, this doesn't really matter, we 
don't have to pick and enforce one.

Philip

On 12/6/21 12:47 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:
> Both styles accomplish the goal of annotating what namespace is being 
> closed -- and both are widely used within the codebase. So I think 
> there's not an intrinsic reason to prefer one over the other. They're 
> both fine.
>
> That said, we should update the coding guidelines to recommend the 
> format which clang-tidy emits -- just to make everyone's lives easier.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 3:03 PM Carlos Galvez via llvm-dev 
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I was recently working on a patch and was asked during review to
>     replace existing:
>     "// end namespace clang"   Style A
>     with :
>     "// namespace clang"          Style B
>
>     After that, I got interested to understand what the preferred
>     style is, and found in the Coding Guidelines
>     <https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-namespace-qualifiers-to-implement-previously-declared-functions>
>     that the style is actually Style A.
>
>     On the other hand, clang-format will automatically enforce Style B
>     on new code, via the FixNamespaceComments option, which is set to
>     "true" for the LLVM style. clang-format will keep the Style A if
>     it already exists, however. Most people using clang-format
>     (outside LLVM) will probably be more familiar with Style B.
>
>     Additionally, I have seen the following usage numbers in the repo:
>
>     $ git grep '/// end' | wc -l
>     6724
>     $ git grep '/// namespace' | wc -l
>     14348
>
>     So Style B seems to be more adopted. Therefore I wanted to ask -
>     should we update the Coding Guidelines to reflect this, and avoid
>     these kinds of style discussions in code reviews? If so, what
>     style should be preferred? I have a patch
>     <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115115> for review and there seems to
>     be a preference for keeping both styles. Regardless of the choice,
>     I don't think this should lead to an urgent style change of the
>     whole codebase.
>
>     Looking forward to your feedback!
>
>     Best regards,
>     Carlos
>     _______________________________________________
>     LLVM Developers mailing list
>     llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>     <https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211206/ebc9d8db/attachment-0001.html>