search for: uppercamelcased

TL;DR: change the rule for variable names from UpperCamelCase to lowerCamelCase. Just to get wider visibility on this, I'm raising this again as an RFC, as suggested by Roman Lebedev. My original post from last week is here and gives a rationale: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-February/129854.html. There seemed to be general agreement that the status quo is not ideal.

> On Jul 5, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:57 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> I argue we should spell C++ lambdas (and other function-like variables) like functions, not like variables. >> >> - Use verbs, not nouns. > > I think I agree with

> On Jul. 5, 2018, at 18:12, Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at

I would assume that the proper name in this case is constantExpr, and not CE. This is not really an acronym, but rather a shortcut taken for some unclear reason. > On 12. Feb 2019, at 13:02, Björn Pettersson A via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > (Sorry if this subject already has been discussed, but I could not find any clear rules/recommendations.) > >

It very much depends on what is following the code snippit. If the second "if" is guarding a substantial block of code, "constantExpr" might very well be a good name. Otherwise something like "cExpr" or "constExpr" might be fine. In the past when I have seen things like "CE" in the code, it's not always immediately clear to me what it is. I

I argue we should spell C++ lambdas (and other function-like variables) like functions, not like variables. - Use verbs, not nouns. - Use lowerCamelCase. Here's a patch that implements the change to the coding standards: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48991 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D48991> Thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...but not optimal according to most common needs, that are 1. Name a package 2. Name a class 3. Name a function 4. Name a parameter of a function 5. Name a variable My approach is the following 1. Package names should be made of lowercase characters, dash, dot and underscore 2. Class names are UpperCamelCased 3. Function names are lowerCamelCased 4. Function parameters are semantic names resulting from underscore separated lowerCamelCased function name, type acronym and length specification. 5. Variable should be snake case That way you can not confuse one for the other. This brings clear view, eas...

> On Feb 12, 2019, at 4:02 AM, Björn Pettersson A via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > (Sorry if this subject already has been discussed, but I could not find any clear rules/recommendations.) > > What would the recommendation be for acronyms (I’ve seen the rule about avoiding them unless they are “well known”, > but sometimes an acronym is useful, and we

FWIW, I'm pretty strongly opposed to humbleCamelCase. We already use that style so something else. One of the biggest advantages of changing the variable naming convention would be to differentiate variables from other constructs IMO, and that's the nature of many examples here. Using underscore_names for variables as Zach suggests would,, onhe other hand, be a significant improvement

Won't it be better to have a convention that allows lowercase, dash, underscore and dot as only valid characters for new package names and keep the ancient format validation scheme for older package names? This could be implemented by a single function, taking a strictNaming_b_1 parameter which defaults to true. Easy to use, and compliance results will vary according to the parameter value,