Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1200 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables"
2010 Nov 23
0
[LLVMdev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) <wan at google.com> wrote:
> +llvmdev
>
> Thanks for the comments, Chris.
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 22, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> Based on our discussion
2010 Nov 23
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) wrote:
> If possible, I'd prefer that all variable names have the same style.
> I'm afraid that we'll end up with the current inconsistent style if
> we
> leave it to people to interpret whether a name is metasyntactic and
> thus should be lower-case.
>
> Also, having both types and variables in StrictCamelCase increases
> the
> chance
2010 Nov 29
8
[LLVMdev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
Hi,
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.
2010/11/23 Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) <wan at google.com>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) <wan at google.com>
> wrote:
> > +llvmdev
> >
>
2010 Dec 02
3
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
Hi,
I uploaded a patch for the "*Kind enum" rule to
http://codereview.appspot.com/3402041
and attached it to this message too. Would you please take a look? Thanks,
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) <wan at google.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Chris and John. Committed in r120689. I'll try to add the
> *Kind rule in a separate patch. Cheers,
>
>
2010 Dec 02
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:29 PM, Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I've uploaded a new patch to http://codereview.appspot.com/3264041.
> It's also attached to this message.
This patch looks great to me, please apply, thanks!
> I think I've addressed all your comments, except "when in doubt, an
> enum should be a 'Kind'". I don't
2010 Dec 10
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
On Dec 1, 2010, at 9:32 PM, Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I uploaded a patch for the "*Kind enum" rule to
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/3402041
>
> and attached it to this message too. Would you please take a look? Thanks,
Applied, thanks! After applying it, I went through and restructured the section for readability:
2010 Dec 01
3
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the comments, Chris! Glad that we are making progress.
>>
>> I'll make most of the edits you suggested later today. Before that,
>> there are a couple of high-level points I'd like to go over
2010 Dec 02
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
Thanks, Chris and John. Committed in r120689. I'll try to add the
*Kind rule in a separate patch. Cheers,
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:29 PM, Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> I've uploaded a new patch to http://codereview.appspot.com/3264041.
>> It's
2010 Dec 01
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
Hi Chris,
I've uploaded a new patch to http://codereview.appspot.com/3264041.
It's also attached to this message.
I think I've addressed all your comments, except "when in doubt, an
enum should be a 'Kind'". I don't think I fully understand that
point, and it strikes me as a bit ad hoc for the coding standards. Do
we really want it?
If you feel that's
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
2011 Feb 11
1
[LLVMdev] adding a function to test whether a char is a path separator
Hi Doug,
While refactoring clang::FileManager to use llvm::sys::path, I had a
need for a function to test whether a char is a path separator. I
think it would be generally useful. Would you be able to review it?
You can see http://codereview.appspot.com/4186045 or the attachment.
Thanks,
--
Zhanyong
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name:
2010 Nov 16
1
[LLVMdev] cosmetic changes to LLVM coding standards
Hi Chris,
I was reading the LLVM coding standards and noticed some typos &
formatting nits. Please see http://codereview.appspot.com/3127041 for
my proposed fix.
Most of changes are local and cosmetic. The only bigger change I made
is to group the sections about iostream and raw_ostream together, as
they are logically related. I had to edit the text a little bit after
the move, in order
2010 Dec 01
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
Thanks for the comments, Chris! Glad that we are making progress.
I'll make most of the edits you suggested later today. Before that,
there are a couple of high-level points I'd like to go over with you.
1. I totally agree that the biggest benefit of a naming convention is
uniform APIs. On the other hand, an inconsistent local naming style
hurts the productivity of contributors and
2010 Dec 01
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) wrote:
> Thanks for the comments, Chris! Glad that we are making progress.
>
> I'll make most of the edits you suggested later today. Before that,
> there are a couple of high-level points I'd like to go over with you.
>
> 1. I totally agree that the biggest benefit of a naming convention is
> uniform APIs. On
2010 Nov 30
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x) wrote:
> C++ is such a complex language that no single naming convention will
> be able to cover all cases. Therefore we aim at a reasonable default
> that works for the majority of the cases. As Chris put at the
> beginning of the coding standards, "no coding standards should be
> regarded as absolute requirements to be
2010 Nov 23
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Bo Persson <bop at gmb.dk> wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chandler Carruth
> To: Zhanyong Wan (λx.x x)
> Cc: Argyrios Kyrtzidis ; clang-dev Developers
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:36 PM,
2013 Apr 02
1
R doesn't recognize utils functions, such as arrayIndex( )
Hi all,
When I called arrayIndex(20:23, dim=c(4,3,3)), it says "Error: could not
find function "arrayIndex"in R". So I called ls("package:utils") to see the
functions inside:
[1] "?"
[2] "adist"
[3] "alarm"
[4] "apropos"
[5] "aregexec"
[6] "argsAnywhere"
[7] "arrangeWindows"
[8]
2010 Nov 29
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] draft rule for naming types/functions/variables
On 29 nov 2010 03:47 "Xu Zhongxing" <xuzhongxing at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 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.
On the other hand, having names that only differ in the case of a single character, is not
2007 Dec 05
8
3.0.27a, ubuntu server7.10 auth issues
I have upgraded to version 3.0.27a on ubuntu 7.10 server and now the
getent command wont display the active directory users, but wbinfo will.
It worked fine with 3.0.26a and I have not changed my configuration.
I do however have this in my winbind log:
[2007/12/04 13:39:01, 0] nsswitch/winbindd.c:request_len_recv(544)
request_len_recv: Invalid request size received: 2084 (expected
2008 Jun 01
2
Winbind issue
All,
After upgrading to samba 3.0.30 on gentoo amd64 because of my recent
best friend CVE-2008-1105
My winbind daemon is 'hanging up', and refusing to respond to pings
after a few minutes of activity.
Wbinfo -u, getent passwd all work successfully, then after a bit wbinfo
-p just tells me winbind dies.
I have 3.0.30/winbind on another machine, also amd64 that is working....
So