probinson added a comment. In D57896#1406412 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57896#1406412>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> In D57896#1406407 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57896#1406407>, @zturner wrote: > > > If I read the post correctly, it was actually agreeing with me (because it > > said "to reinforce your point...". Meaning that something such as > > `lowerCaseCamel` would be the third style being referred to > > > Correct! just acknowledging your point from a different perspective. Doh! Sorry for the noise. It looks like the RFC thread has mostly turned into a transition-plan debate, so should we work on the actual convention description here? Extracting the naming conventions from the 3.6-era link mentioned above, we have: - types and classes are UpperCamelCase (this is unchanged from current LLVM style) - methods are UpperCamelCase (this is also the old LLVM style IIRC) - variables are snake_case - static data members add "g_" prefix to variable style (although I see a proposal for "s_" instead) - nonstatic data members add "m_" prefix to variable style Did I miss anything really important? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57896/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57896 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
