[llvm-dev] [docs][RFC] Style for "end namespace" comments

[Geoffrey Martin-Noble via llvm-dev]

I'm referring specifically to this part

> That said, we should update the coding guidelines to recommend the format
which clang-tidy emits -- just to make everyone's lives easier.

But I'm not sure the key question here is what James said :-P I agree that
reviewers should not pay any attention to this, but it would be nice if the
coding guidelines conformed to whatever clang-format does (which doesn't
even need to be explicit for this rule. It can just be a catch-all "do what
clang-format says"). I think the coding examples are non-normative, so
*shouldn't* be used as evidence of unrelated rules, but obviously people do
actually read them that way, so formatting them with clang-format seems
like a good idea.

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 2:59 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
wrote:

> Er, you and I are reading James' response very differently.
>
> To me, this topic does not matter.  We do not need to enforce a rule on
> this.  Reviewers should not be wasting time on this.
>
> Philip
> On 12/6/21 2:04 PM, Geoffrey Martin-Noble wrote:
>
> I think James basically said the opposite: that we should use whatever
> clang-format does and be done with it. Things that don't really matter are
> one of the best cases for a style guide (accompanied by tooling to do it
> automatically). Otherwise you get reviewers commenting as they did on
> Carlos' patch. I would recommend that we encourage people to not comment on
> such things, but having it tool enforced and consistent seems good.
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 1:31 PM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> I agree with James.  Both are reasonable, this doesn't really matter, we
>> don't have to pick and enforce one.
>>
>> Philip
>> On 12/6/21 12:47 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>> Both styles accomplish the goal of annotating what namespace is being
>> closed -- and both are widely used within the codebase. So I think there's
>> not an intrinsic reason to prefer one over the other. They're both fine.
>>
>> That said, we should update the coding guidelines to recommend the format
>> which clang-tidy emits -- just to make everyone's lives easier.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 3:03 PM Carlos Galvez via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was recently working on a patch and was asked during review to replace
>>> existing:
>>> "// end namespace clang"   Style A
>>> with :
>>> "// namespace clang"          Style B
>>>
>>> After that, I got interested to understand what the preferred style is,
>>> and found in the Coding Guidelines
>>> <https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-namespace-qualifiers-to-implement-previously-declared-functions>
>>> that the style is actually Style A.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, clang-format will automatically enforce Style B on
>>> new code, via the FixNamespaceComments option, which is set to "true" for
>>> the LLVM style. clang-format will keep the Style A if it already exists,
>>> however. Most people using clang-format (outside LLVM) will probably be
>>> more familiar with Style B.
>>>
>>> Additionally, I have seen the following usage numbers in the repo:
>>>
>>> $ git grep '//
>>>
>>> * end' | wc -l 6724 $ git grep '//* namespace' | wc -l
>>> 14348
>>>
>>> So Style B seems to be more adopted. Therefore I wanted to ask - should
>>> we update the Coding Guidelines to reflect this, and avoid these kinds of
>>> style discussions in code reviews? If so, what style should be preferred? I
>>> have a patch <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115115> for review and there
>>> seems to be a preference for keeping both styles. Regardless of the choice,
>>> I don't think this should lead to an urgent style change of the whole
>>> codebase.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your feedback!
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Carlos
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttps://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/20211206/f2f7e0c0/attachment.html>