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

Jan Kratochvil via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Oct 8 01:14:31 PDT 2019

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:39:51 +0200, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev wrote:
> 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.
> What do you think?

If I should say something I would keep llvm::.

My reason: The LLVM types are in many cases emulating classes adopted
in future C++ standards and I find more clear llvm:: vs. std:: than
"" vs. std::. Moreover when std:: is commonly omitted in other projects.


More information about the lldb-dev mailing list