[llvm-dev] changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase

[Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:02 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> There is of course some amount of llvm and clang code which already uses
> initialLowerCaseNames for variable names too, contrary to the style guide.
> I don't know how to easily quantify how much.
>

There is also a decent amount of code in Clang using foo_bar_baz. ::shrug::

I think the amount of all of these pales in comparison to LLDB, and I think
generally all of these are not going to significantly change the total cost
of transition.

-Chandler


>
> E.g. ParseGNUAttributes in clang/include/clang/Parse/Parser.h is one I
> noticed.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:49 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> I want to reiterate the benefit that underscore_names would bring.  To be
>> clear it's not my favorite style, but it does have a very concrete
>> advantage which is that we have a very large subproject already using it.
>> it doesn't make sense to do a purely aesthetic move that not everyone is
>> going to agree on anyway, when we could do one with actual tangible value.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:52 AM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Chandler wrote:
>>>
>>> > FWIW, I'm pretty strongly opposed to humbleCamelCase. We already use
>>> that
>>> > style so something else.
>>>
>>> Presumably you are equally opposed to RegularCamelCase, because we
>>> already
>>> use *that* style for something else.
>>>
>>> But really, objecting on the grounds that a given style is already used
>>> for
>>> function names is really a very weak argument.  IME function names are
>>> *incredibly* *hard* to confuse with anything else, because they *always*
>>> have
>>> surrounding syntactic context. Given `TheStuff->fooBar().getThingy()` is
>>> it
>>> even conceivable that you might not instantly get that fooBar and
>>> getThingy
>>> are methods?  Therefore, using the same convention for some other kind of
>>> name is Not Confusing.
>>>
>>> OTOH, `TheStuff` comes out of nowhere with no clues to its origin, and
>>> *that*
>>> is a barrier to code-reading IME.  Even renaming it to `stuff` would help
>>> approximately zero percent. Parameter? Local? Class member? Global?
>>> LLVM has
>>> incredibly few globals for other reasons, but using the same convention
>>> for
>>> locals and class members is a real problem for code-reading, especially
>>> code
>>> operating in methods for classes you're not super familiar with.
>>>
>>> I acknowledge that the current RFC doesn't propose a member naming
>>> convention
>>> different from other variables, but IMO it really ought to.  *That* is
>>> the
>>> distinction that would really help in reading unfamiliar code.
>>> --paulr
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190218/134b7b1a/attachment.html>