llvm dev - Jan 2010 - [LLVMdev] another minor problem with the ocaml binding

everyone--

I notice that Llvm.llvm_handle_to_type is actually defined to create a type
handle from a type, rather than vice versa as its name would imply.  Should I
send a patch to change the name of the function to reflect its type better, or
should I just lump it?


—
j h woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org>
http://jhw.vox.com/

to me the name implies that it creates a handle to the type given, i guess
if you look at it in context of the ocaml conversion functions some people
may think otherwise.


On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:49 PM, james woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org>
wrote:
> everyone--
>
> I notice that Llvm.llvm_handle_to_type is actually defined to create a type
> handle from a type, rather than vice versa as its name would imply.  Should
> I send a patch to change the name of the function to reflect its type
> better, or should I just lump it?
>
>
> —
> j h woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org>
> http://jhw.vox.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100207/5cd94cfd/attachment.html>

On Feb 6, 2010, at 19:30, Paul Davey wrote:
> to me the name implies that it creates a handle to the type given, i guess
if you look at it in context of the ocaml conversion functions some people may
think otherwise.
The OCaml standard library uses a convention for conversion functions like this,
and various OCaml programming tutorials recommend using the convention in
application code.


—
j h woodyatt <jhw at conjury.org>
http://jhw.vox.com/