[PATCH] D69354: Make coding standards document more inclusive

[Hal Finkel via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

hfinkel added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CodingStandards.rst:170
 
-Classes are one fundamental part of a good object oriented design.  As such, a
+Classes are a fundamental part of a object-oriented design.  As such, a
 class definition should have a comment block that explains what the class is
----------------
bmcreusillet wrote:
> a object-oriented -> an object oriented?
Should be:

  an object-oriented design

(compound adjectives get a dash)



================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CodingStandards.rst:1356
 The reason for doing this is not completely arbitrary.  This style makes control
-flow operators stand out more, and makes expressions flow better. The function
-call operator binds very tightly as a postfix operator.  Putting a space after a
-function name (as in the last example) makes it appear that the code might bind
-the arguments of the left-hand-side of a binary operator with the argument list
-of a function and the name of the right side.  More specifically, it is easy to
-misread the "``A``" example as:
-
-.. code-block:: c++
-
-  A = foo ((42, 92) + bar) (X);
-
-when skimming through the code.  By avoiding a space in a function, we avoid
-this misinterpretation.
+flow operators stand out more, and makes expressions flow better.
 
----------------
control-flow operators


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D69354/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D69354