[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Modernizing LLVM Coding Style Guide and enforcing Clang-tidy

[David Blaikie via cfe-dev]

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:59 PM Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry I fat fingered an earlier send in the previous email.  I was
> trying to say:
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Sanjoy Das
> <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote:
> >> +1 Exactly this.
> >> I don't think C programmer will not understand using. The "=" makes it
> much
> >> simpler to read, even if it is the first time you see it, which is not
> the
> >> case of typedef.
> >>
> >> typedef MyType::NestedType (*fptr)(const MyOhterType&);
> >> or
> >> using fptr = MyType::NestedType (*)(const MyOhterType&);
> >
>
> I would prefer to please keep using typedefs at least for function
> pointers.  I find either of
>
> typedef MyType::NestedType (*fptr)(const MyOhterType&);
>
> or
>
> typedef int fptr(const int&);
>
> void f(fptr* ptr) {
>   ...
> }
>
> easier to read than the "using" declaration (especially the second
> form, with the explicit `fptr* ptr`).
>

Not sure I follow. You're saying this:

  typedef int func_type(const int&);

is easier for you to read than this:

  using func_type = int(const int&);

?


>
> -- Sanjoy
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170109/5e81ee26/attachment.html>