[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D109120: [libc++][NFC] Remove uses of 'using namespace std; ' in the test suite

[Arthur O'Dwyer via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

Quuxplusone requested changes to this revision.
Quuxplusone added inline comments.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/libcxx/numerics/c.math/fdelayed-template-parsing.pass.cpp:27
-
-using namespace std;
----------------
This can't possibly have been accidental, can it? What's the subtle point of this test?


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/containers/unord/unord.map/unord.map.elem/index_tuple.pass.cpp:25
+struct my_hash {
+    std::size_t operator()(const std::tuple<int, int>&) const { return 0; }
 };
----------------
You don't need the `std::` on `size_t`. (Compare line 29, where you left it off and it was totally fine.)
Some people put it religiously; I personally //omit// it religiously (on analogy to `int`, and because I like typing less).
Anyway, consider making lines 25 and 29 consistent (but it doesn't matter).


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/input.output/filesystems/class.path/path.nonmember/swap.pass.cpp:35
   {
-    using namespace std; using namespace fs;
     ASSERT_NOEXCEPT(swap(p1, p2));
----------------
This must have been intentional — trying to verify that we get no ambiguity from lookup finding both `std::swap` and `std::filesystem::swap`?? — but in this case I'm fairly sure I understand the issues involved and agree that deleting this line is fine.

Alternatively, delete `using namespace fs;` but keep `using namespace std;` — then we'd be testing that the "std::swap two-step" correctly works with `path` the same way it works with other types.

Obviously lines 41-42 should be made consistent with whatever you choose to do here.


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/numerics/complex.number/complex.literals/literals2.pass.cpp:10
 // UNSUPPORTED: c++03, c++11
-// <chrono>
+// <complex>
 
----------------
:shipit:


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/strings/basic.string.literals/literal3.pass.cpp:17
+int main(int, char**) {
+    using namespace std::literals;
+    std::string foo = ""s;
----------------
No, this one is 100% intentional. Compare literal1.cpp.
However, please add comments to each of the files... and IMHO ideally combine them into just one file, so that it will be more obvious in the future what's supposed to be different between each file.


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/std/strings/string.view/string_view.literals/literal3.pass.cpp:19
+int main(int, char**) {
+    using namespace std::literals;
+    std::string_view foo = ""sv;
----------------
Ditto.


================
Comment at: libcxx/test/support/any_helpers.h:93
     assert(containsType<Type>(a));
-    any_cast<Type&>(a).value = value;
+    std::any_cast<Type&>(a).value = value;
 }
----------------
Oho. This double-`using` idiom must date back to when `std::experimental::any_cast` was a thing. We don't have to worry about that anymore, right?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D109120/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D109120