Eugene.Zelenko added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392#1060912, @Wizard wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392#1060854, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392#1060845, @Wizard wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392#1060485, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > >
> > > > If this is Apple guideline, check name should reflect this. I think 
> > > > will be good idea to have general check for Apple naming conventions 
> > > > instead of separate checks for specific situations like 
> > > > //objc-ivar-declaration// and //objc-property-declaration//.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the suggestion. I understand your point that they are both 
> > > naming convention, however, they are about different components and using 
> > > totally different naming rules. PropertyDeclarationCheck is already a 
> > > very complicated check (the most complicated one for ObjC), I would 
> > > rather not make it more heavy and try my best to split independent logic 
> > > to different checks.
> >
> >
> > See readability-identifier-naming 
> > <http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability-identifier-naming.html>
> >  as example of multiple rules in one check.
>
>
> I took a look at IdentifierNamingCheck. Here's my thought:
>
> 1. IdentifierNamingCheck is trying to apply configurable naming convention to 
> C++ identifiers, and all the identifiers will share the same style set. That 
> is not the case of ObjC, where we follow Apple's programming guide, and 
> different types of identifiers are using different style.
> 2. Such pattern can handle complicated requirements but to me it is not 
> simple enough to read and maintain. I would rather keep things simple and 
> clear as long as we have choice.
>
>   However, this check provides a good example of refactoring if in the future 
> we have the needs of organizing complicated naming styles. Moving from 
> simplicity to complexity is always easier. Thanks for pointing this out for 
> us.


My point is not flexibility of configuration, but handling of various types of 
identifiers in same check, even if conventions are different.


Repository:
  rCTE Clang Tools Extra

https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to