aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/utils/HeaderFileExtensionsUtils.h:21 -typedef llvm::SmallSet<llvm::StringRef, 5> HeaderFileExtensionsSet; +using HeaderFileExtensionsSet = SmallSet<StringRef, 5>; ---------------- hintonda wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > I do not like that we're removing the namespace qualifier here. I would > > prefer to leave it as `::llvm::SmallSet<::llvm::StringRef, 5>` if there is > > a namespace clash. > Other than aesthetics, the reason I don't like the idea of fully scoping > these types, at least without a comment, is that the error is triggered by > some other code gets included first, and has nothing to do with this code -- > there's nothing actually wrong with the original code. So it could/would be > confusing for a reader later on wondering why you needed to fully scope these > types, and not others. I would argue that the original code is wrong to not use fully-qualified namespace specifiers. The issue is that we have two different namespaces named `llvm` and have gotten away with poor namespace hygiene by accident. Either we should rename the clang-tidy `llvm` namespace to something that does not conflict, or we should consistently use fully-qualified namespace specifiers when in clang-tidy and needing to refer to an `llvm` namespace explicitly. I think this patch goes in the wrong direction by making it easier to limp along with poor namespace hygiene. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60151/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60151 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
