aaron.ballman added a comment. In D107095#2940638 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107095#2940638>, @beanz wrote:
> +@lebedev.ri > > @aaron.ballman thank you for all the feedback and support! > > I'm not really sure where to go on the naming. I'm not attached to > `header_unsafe`, and totally understand the confusion. I don't really love > the `reserved*` wording either as it doesn't really convey meaning. We can spitball some ideas, and interested people can chime in with their opinions. I don't want to hold up the functionality for overly long on bikeshedding the name, so if at some point it starts to feel like we should pick one and go with it, we can do that. Sound reasonable? > For my other patch I like `final` because it means something similar to what > the `final` keyword means in C++ and other languages (i.e. don't change this > again). > > For this I also thought about variations on `restrict` to signify > restrictions on the macro's expansion contexts. > > The goal is to warn on expansions that are outside the main source file, so > maybe something like `restrict_header_expansion`? > > Very open to feedback here on making clear naming. After all naming is one of > the hardest problems in computer science :) I think `restrict_header_expansion` is an improvement, but rather wordy. Maybe `restrict_expansion` instead? Paging @rsmith, who is often very good at naming questions. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107095/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107095 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
