search for: foo_all

...e have a lot of classes which have method pairs `foo_begin()` and `foo_end()` (e.g. `Function::arg_{begin,end}()`). These don't play nice with range-for loops (we are already seeing this come up in LLD). We probably should adopt some lightweight "range" class and a naming convention (`foo_all()`?) that will interact well with range-for. jyasskin, you have some standards proposals for such a class, maybe you could try bringing that into tree? -- Sean Silva

...hich have > method pairs `foo_begin()` and `foo_end()` (e.g. > `Function::arg_{begin,end}()`). These don't play nice with range-for > loops (we are already seeing this come up in LLD). We probably should > adopt some lightweight "range" class and a naming convention > (`foo_all()`?) that will interact well with range-for. jyasskin, you > have some standards proposals for such a class, maybe you could try > bringing that into tree? The C++ proposal changes rapidly. While it would be great to get usage experience from LLVM in order to inform the C++ proposal, I don...

...ethod pairs `foo_begin()` and `foo_end()` (e.g. >> `Function::arg_{begin,end}()`). These don't play nice with range-for >> loops (we are already seeing this come up in LLD). We probably should >> adopt some lightweight "range" class and a naming convention >> (`foo_all()`?) that will interact well with range-for. jyasskin, you >> have some standards proposals for such a class, maybe you could try >> bringing that into tree? > > The C++ proposal changes rapidly. While it would be great to get usage > experience from LLVM in order to inform th...

...hich have > method pairs `foo_begin()` and `foo_end()` (e.g. > `Function::arg_{begin,end}()`). These don't play nice with range-for > loops (we are already seeing this come up in LLD). We probably should > adopt some lightweight "range" class and a naming convention > (`foo_all()`?) that will interact well with range-for. jyasskin, you > have some standards proposals for such a class, maybe you could try > bringing that into tree? +1. I've done this in my own code and it is so very nice. :) -David

It's seems like a quiet and peaceful day, lets stir things up a bit :) How crazy would it be for us to start using basic C++'11 language features (but not C++'11 library features) in LLVM: things like auto, rvalue-refs, lambdas, etc? I think that we can keep things well defined with a few simple requirements: language features must be supported by MSVC 2010 and later, some version of

..._begin()` and `foo_end()` (e.g. >>> `Function::arg_{begin,end}()`). These don't play nice with range-for >>> loops (we are already seeing this come up in LLD). We probably should >>> adopt some lightweight "range" class and a naming convention >>> (`foo_all()`?) that will interact well with range-for. jyasskin, you >>> have some standards proposals for such a class, maybe you could try >>> bringing that into tree? >> >> The C++ proposal changes rapidly. While it would be great to get usage >> experience from LLVM in...