Clang derivative tool naming


first of all I want to thank everybody who’s contributed to Clang/LLVM for such an amazing platform to build other tools on. The past few weeks I’ve been hacking around the code and every time I’ve needed something, it’s either already been done or is very easy to achieve with what exists already.

To my question: I’ll be releasing some open source code in the next few weeks which for now I’ve named ClangX (where X is the name of the tool). It uses Clang quite significantly to achieve its goal and wouldn’t be possible without it, unless I wrote my own parser. Is this kind of naming considered good form? I can rename if necessary.


  • Don

I don’t see any problem with this, so long as reasonable people won’t think that the tool “is clang” or “part of clang”.


Thinking on it some more the last thing I want to do is name something which suggests that it’s the ideal way of doing things with clang. Thanks for your input, Chris.


  • Don