[llvm-dev] Variable names rule

[Zachary Turner via llvm-dev]

If we're talking about member variables, just put an m in front of it,
problem solved.  You already have one for s_, and I didn't see you mention
it but I assume you'd want g_ for globals, so m_ makes perfect sense for
member variables and there's no question about UB at that point.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 1:27 PM JD Jones via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Yeah, I hated it too at first. It grew on me.  After about a week or so,
> it does make it easy to differentiate between different kinds of elements
> at a quick glance, can be more readable than a single or two character
> identifier, doesn't take up much horizontal space (considering LLVM allows
> only 80, that should be a consideration...unless that, too, is under
> discussion?)  can be very pronounceable, and when documentation is created
> from it, allows the reader of that documentation to quickly differentiate
> between different kinds of elements as well.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
> Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev
> Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 2:51 PM
> To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Variable names rule
> Importance: Low
>
> On 2/4/2019 2:29 PM, Tim Northover via llvm-dev wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 20:21, JD Jones <jjones at prc-hsv.com> wrote:
> >> If _<lowerCaseLetter> violates a standard, please say which one. It
> does not violate the C++11 standard:
> >
> > If strictly adhered to, it doesn't, and I've never claimed any
> > different. But coding standards are never strictly adhered to.
> > Particularly not in a codebase like LLVM which already has a good
> > handful in play for historical reasons. We can't expect reviewers to
> > be perfect either, and violations of a leading underscore rule have a
> > ridiculously high probability of producing malformed C++.
> >
> > It's simply not worth the aggro when there are plenty of other
> > possibilities available that don't open us up for that failure mode.
>
> IMO, any convention that contains leading or trailing underscores should
> be rejected outright. The primary purpose of a convention is to allow a
> person to differentiate between different kinds of elements with a quick
> glance. It should strive to make these elements appear different without
> sacrificing the readability. Prepending or appending a lone underscore is
> really making the identifier as similar to another one as possible, while
> still making it different from the language standard point of view, i.e.
> the opposite to what a useful convention should do.
>
> -Krzysztof
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
> --
> This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain Paragon
> Research Corporation (PRC) confidential or privileged information.  Use or
> distribution of such confidential information is strictly prohibited
> without the prior written permission of PRC.  If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the
> message and attachments from your computer.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20190204/6d94197b/attachment.html>