Modernizing LLVM Coding Style Guide and enforcing Clang-tidy

Project Infrastructure LLVM Dev List Archives
41

That needs to be fptr* f = z;

42

Sent from a mobile device, please excuse typos.

Hi,

Sorry I fat fingered an earlier send in the previous email. I was
trying to say:

>> +1 Exactly this.
>> I don't think C programmer will not understand using. The "=" makes
it much
>> simpler to read, even if it is the first time you see it, which is
not the
>> case of typedef.
>>
>> typedef MyType::NestedType (*fptr)(const MyOhterType&);
>> or
>> using fptr = MyType::NestedType (*)(const MyOhterType&);
>

I would prefer to please keep using typedefs at least for function
pointers. I find either of

typedef MyType::NestedType (*fptr)(const MyOhterType&);

or

typedef int fptr(const int&);

void f(fptr* ptr) {
  ...
}

easier to read than the "using" declaration (especially the second
form, with the explicit `fptr* ptr`).

Not sure I follow. You're saying this:

  typedef int func_type(const int&);

is easier for you to read than this:

  using func_type = int(const int&);

?

I never saw syntax

typedef int funct_type(const int&);

I tried to use it and I got compile error for code:
int z(const int&);

int main() {
    typedef int fptr(const int&);

    fptr f = z;

That needs to be fptr* f = z;

Yeah. It was confusing in the original example to have "ptr" in the name of
the typedef. Usually it is more like:

typedef int callback_func(void *closure);
int foo(callback_func *cb) {
  // ...
}

(though this style is pretty rare in my experience, and results in the
callback_func name being a weird type that you can't assign or do other
stuff with).

-- Sean Silva

43

Sent from a mobile device, please excuse typos.

Hi,

Sorry I fat fingered an earlier send in the previous email. I was
trying to say:

>> +1 Exactly this.
>> I don't think C programmer will not understand using. The "=" makes
it much
>> simpler to read, even if it is the first time you see it, which is
not the
>> case of typedef.
>>
>> typedef MyType::NestedType (*fptr)(const MyOhterType&);
>> or
>> using fptr = MyType::NestedType (*)(const MyOhterType&);
>

I would prefer to please keep using typedefs at least for function
pointers. I find either of

typedef MyType::NestedType (*fptr)(const MyOhterType&);

or

typedef int fptr(const int&);

void f(fptr* ptr) {
  ...
}

easier to read than the "using" declaration (especially the second
form, with the explicit `fptr* ptr`).

Not sure I follow. You're saying this:

  typedef int func_type(const int&);

is easier for you to read than this:

  using func_type = int(const int&);

?

I never saw syntax

typedef int funct_type(const int&);

I tried to use it and I got compile error for code:
int z(const int&);

int main() {
    typedef int fptr(const int&);

    fptr f = z;

That needs to be fptr* f = z;

That make sense!

Yeah. It was confusing in the original example to have "ptr" in the name
of the typedef. Usually it is more like:

typedef int callback_func(void *closure);
int foo(callback_func *cb) {
  // ...
}

(though this style is pretty rare in my experience, and results in the
callback_func name being a weird type that you can't assign or do other
stuff with).

-- Sean Silva

Yep, I have never seen it in LLVM code.

44

Can we get at least a summary of any decisions made before action is taken? I’m definitely not reading this thread in detail and I doubt others are either.

Philip