Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "islvalu".
Did you mean:
islvalue
2010 Nov 30
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
...also means far less churn when someone decides to go crazy fixing the codebase. :)
Given that, here are some suggestions for a future rev of your patch:
+<p>In general, names of types, functions, and variables should be in
+camel case (e.g. <tt>TextFileReader</tt> and <tt>isLValue</tt>).
I'd suggest using <tt>isLValue()</tt> to make it clear that one is a type and one is a function.
+Function names should be verb phrases
I completely agree, but it is worth adding a short justification, explaining that methods are "actions".
+Variable (inc...
2010 Nov 29
3
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Anton Korobeynikov
<anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote:
>> I enjoyed the new coding style in recent patches. Camel case makes it easy
>> to pick a descriptive name. Starting functions and variables with lower
>> cases reduces chances to conflict with a type name.
> Honestly speaking, I don't. Especially in the cases when varname is
2010 Nov 23
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
...not followed the thread, but here was my
>> > comment:
>> >
>> > http://codereview.appspot.com/3264041/diff/1/docs/CodingStandards.html#newcode801
>> > docs/CodingStandards.html:801: camel case (e.g. <tt>TextFileReader</tt>
>> > and <tt>isLValue</tt>).
>> > I would really prefer some stylistic difference between variables and
>> > types/functions. This is mostly a problem (for me) with local variables,
>> > where having some signifier of the locality helps me in reading it.
>>
>> Agreed. That&...