[cfe-dev] Any interest in renaming PLACEHOLDER_TYPE ?

[Faisal Vali]

To start the bike-shedding: unresolved_type?



Faisal Vali



On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote:

> Seems like a reasonable idea; what do you suggest as an alternative? FWIW,
> I've been using "undeduced type" to mean "type that contains a placeholder
> type".
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:00 AM, Faisal Vali <faisalv at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The core portion of the C++ standard denotes a "placeholder type"
>> differently from its use in Clang.  Since clang tends to do a nice job of
>> mapping most constructs/notions from the standard into intuitive code -
>> this could stand out as potentially confusing ...
>>
>> I know this is probably very low priority, but is there any interest in
>> renaming PLACEHOLDER_TYPE (and the related functions), or is it too late?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Faisal Vali
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130505/84f2696c/attachment.html>