llvm dev - Jan 2013 - [LLVMdev] Renaming MCInstFragment to MCRelaxableFragment

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Rafael Espíndola
<rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess that is OK, but wouldn't it be better to also rename
> MCDataFragments then?
>
I don't know what a more suitable name would be. Any ideas?

Eli

> I don't know what a more suitable name would be. Any ideas?
I initially thought MCRelaxedFragment would go well with
MCRelaxableFragment, since a MCRelaxableFragment is merged into a
MCRelaxedFragment once we are done relaxing it.

The problem is that both names are really similar.
> Eli
Cheers,
Rafael

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Rafael Espíndola
<rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't know what a more suitable name would be. Any ideas?
>
> I initially thought MCRelaxedFragment would go well with
> MCRelaxableFragment, since a MCRelaxableFragment is merged into a
> MCRelaxedFragment once we are done relaxing it.
>
> The problem is that both names are really similar.
>
Yes, having two such similar names would definitely be confusing. An
additional problem with MCRelaxedFragment is that it's used for
completely relaxation-unrelated things like .data and .byte, where
MCDataFragment actually makes sense. To conclude, I think that leaving
MCDataFragment named as it is isn't a bad option for now; it can
always be renamed if we come up with a better name in the future.

Eli