LLVM coding style regarding consecutive angle brackets (>>) in templates

Hi all,

This SO post is regarding the status of consecutive angle brackets in templates.
I’m writing here too, hoping to get a certified answer.

Since it is legal to write:

vector<vector> MyMatrix;

and not just:

// vector<vector > MyMatrix;

I was somewhat surprised to find many > > patterns when grepping llvm 6.0.0.

What are the considerations against sed-replacing all > > with >>?

Is it only the “don’t fix it if it’s not broken” consideration?
Thanks!

Hi all,

This SO post is regarding the status of consecutive angle brackets in templates.
I’m writing here too, hoping to get a certified answer.

Since it is legal to write:

vector<vector> MyMatrix;

and not just:

// vector<vector > MyMatrix;

I was somewhat surprised to find many > > patterns when grepping llvm 6.0.0.

What are the considerations against sed-replacing all > > with >>?

Is it only the “don’t fix it if it’s not broken” consideration?

Generally - there’s some aversion to messing with revision history (as much as revision control systems can see through whitespace changes when blaming, etc) & the like. (same reason we don’t just clang-format the whole codebase)

  • Dave