[lldb-dev] [RFC] Adding a clang-style LLVM.h (or, "Are you tired of typing 'llvm::' everywhere ?")

[Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev]

Hey Pavel,

Sounds like a good idea. I don't have a strong opinion on this matter, but
I'm always in favor of improving readability.

Cheers,
Jonas

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:38 AM Pavel Labath via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> some llvm classes, are so well-known and widely used, that qualifying
> them with "llvm::" serves no useful purpose and only adds visual noise.
> I'm thinking here mainly of ADT classes like String/ArrayRef,
> Optional/Error, etc. I propose we stop explicitly qualifying these classes.
>
> We can implement this proposal the same way as clang solved the same
> problem, which is by creating a special LLVM.h
> <
> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/master/include/clang/Basic/LLVM.h>
>
> header in the Utility library. This header would adopt these classes
> into the lldb_private namespace via a series of forward and "using"
> declarations.
>
> I think clang's LLVM.h is contains a well-balanced collection of adopted
> classes, and it should cover the most widely-used classes in lldb too,
> so I propose we use that as a starting point.
>
> What do you think?
>
> regards,
> pavel
>
> PS: I'm not proposing any wholesale removal of "llvm::" qualifiers from
> these types, though I may do some smaller-scale removals if I'm about to
> substantially modify a file.
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20190417/9b3bd4f1/attachment.html>