Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "lowercamel".
Did you mean:
lowercall
2019 Feb 18
4
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
...lBack versions of the type names, then it will look like this:
>
> InnerLoopVectorizer LB(loop, PSE, loopInfo, DT, targetLibraryInfo, TTI,
> assumptionCache, ORE, vectorizationFactor.Width, IC,
> &loopVectorizationLegality, &CM);
Hold on...
The change from UpperCamel to lowerCamel should be separate from going
from X to somethingOtherName.
It seems like in this example, TLI is changed to targetLibraryInfo for
the purpose of having a name that lowerCamel can be applied to, which
is, at best, backwards.
When a new person sees "TLI", they won't know what it i...
2019 Feb 15
4
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 23:20, Philip Reames via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> I don't care about the convention, but I'm really not sure it's worth the churn which would result in the code base. The hurtle which needs cleared here is not "is it a better naming style", but "is the disruption implied by changing to the new convention
2019 Feb 22
11
RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase
I had posted something in the code review but Chris suggested doing it
here instead, which makes sense. Also I have to remember that the
discussion is specifically about spelling variables, not changing any
other spelling conventions.
Looking at names of "variables" there's reasonable support for making
them visually more distinct from other kinds of names. Regarding
making