[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 08:00:30 PDT 2019

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:42:25 +0200, Pavel Labath wrote:
> On 08/10/2019 10:14, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > 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.
> Which classes do you have in mind exactly? I know a lot of llvm *functions*
> mimic similar std:: versions, but I can't think of any *classes* right now.
> thinking here mainly of ADT classes like String/ArrayRef, Optional/Error,

llvm::StringRef vs. std::string, llvm::Optional vs. std::optional.

I do not want to argue whether it is ambiguous or not but you asked for an
+1/-1 opinion.


More information about the lldb-dev mailing list