[llvm-dev] RFC: should we spell lambdas like functions?

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev]

I wrote that I prefer CamelCase over camelCase for callable objects, but I
don't have a strong opinion. If the majority prefers camelCase, I'm happy
to update the existing lld's code to conform to the new coding style.

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:25 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:21 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <
> dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jul. 5, 2018, at 18:12, Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jul 5, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:57 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <
>>> dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>>> >> I argue we should spell C++ lambdas (and other function-like
>>> variables) like functions, not like variables.
>>> >>
>>> >> - Use verbs, not nouns.
>>> >
>>> > I think I agree with this.
>>> >
>>> >> - Use lowerCamelCase.
>>> >
>>> > In lld we use UpperCamelCase, as they are technically not function
>>> names but variable names. Using lowerCamelCase for function pointers feels
>>> really weird to me, as they are really variables than functions to me.
>>>
>>> I also agree that this is weird either way because they are variables
>>> when declared and passed around and functions when invoked.
>>>
>>
>> How is this different to function pointers in traditional C?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not different.  The patch proposes to spell C++ lambdas *and other
>> function-like variables* like functions.  Essentially, anything that's
>> callable.
>>
>
> That seems a bit more awkward/not-clearly-good to me (though I do
> appreciate that the standard C++ naming convention, for all that it doesn't
> really differentiate between anything (except macros) by having everything
> lower_case, does use the same convention between variables and functions so
> you don't get that disconnect) - ending up with function-named variables
> that don't behave like functions (get used in assignments, have member
> functions called on them, compared to nullptr (weak functions
> notwithstanding), etc).
>
> Seems more like a narrow kind of hungarian notation to me - to designate
> that this variable can be called. Which doesn't seem important enough to
> callout with a separate naming convention.
>
> But I'm not too fussed about it if others feel strongly.
>
> - Dave
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180710/9079f1a5/attachment-0001.html>