llvm dev - Jan 2017 - [cfe-dev] Modernizing LLVM Coding Style Guide and enforcing Clang-tidy

On 9 January 2017 at 14:17, Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> - prefer "using' instead of "typedef"
> - use default member initialization
> - use default, override, delete
> - skip "virtual" with override
I thought we had all of those already...

> The last point is to get to consensus with
>
> push_back({first, second})
> or
> emplace_back(first ,second);
I second Chandler's opinion on this.

cheers,
--renato

2017-01-09 16:15 GMT+01:00 Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>:
> On 9 January 2017 at 14:17, Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > - prefer "using' instead of "typedef"
> > - use default member initialization
> > - use default, override, delete
> > - skip "virtual" with override
>
> I thought we had all of those already...
>
> Nope, some people use it, but I still see a lot of new code with typedefs.
I would like to have it written in style guide so it will be easier to
convince to change in review.

>
> > The last point is to get to consensus with
> >
> > push_back({first, second})
> > or
> > emplace_back(first ,second);
>
> I second Chandler's opinion on this.
>
2:1 for push_back. From commits I also see that most of the people prefer
push_back, but I will wait a little bit with the verdict.

>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170109/ab1d7550/attachment.html>

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 2017-01-09 16:15 GMT+01:00 Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>:
>
>> On 9 January 2017 at 14:17, Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > - prefer "using' instead of "typedef"
>> > - use default member initialization
>> > - use default, override, delete
>> > - skip "virtual" with override
>>
>> I thought we had all of those already...
>>
>> Nope, some people use it, but I still see a lot of new code with
typedefs.
> I would like to have it written in style guide so it will be easier to
> convince to change in review.
>
The last two are enforced by compiler warnings now. The second is hard
because of bitfields.

I object to the first. If you need a new type name, use a typedef. It's
time honored and everyone, including C programmers, will know what you're
doing. I don't understand why people push the new thing just for the sake
of new-ness.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170109/eb3d1ebc/attachment.html>