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

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

> On Feb 22, 2019, at 1:48 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> A more focused and shorter transition period will create a lot of
> short-term churn but get us to the good endpoint sooner.  Doing
> conversions per-file or per-class (rather than per-function [too
> small] or per-library [too big]) are probably the way to go.  
> Given we are changing the names used for _data_, and we try to 
> practice good data-hiding, the impact of the conversion of any 
> given class *ought* to be reasonably confined.
> 
> I generally agree with this strategy. That said, I would still do it somewhat lazily rather than eagerly, but batched much as you're suggesting.
> 
> If we are going to update variable names in a batch, I'd like to nominate lld as a starter project. It is a middle-sized LLVM subproject which currently follows the today's LLVM naming convention, and because of its size it shouldn't be too hard to convert the entire code base in a single patch or a few patches.

This is a really great idea.  This would also give the ability to do an A/B comparison with a specific set of examples.

The reason this matters to me is that we often get caught up on the theory of various ideas, but seeing what it means in practice in full context can really help sometimes.

-Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190227/99529f88/attachment.html>