shafik added a comment. +1
In D101627#2729594 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D101627#2729594>, @jingham wrote: > I would resist this change. It's unnecessarily disruptive, would again break > git archeology, and really have no significant benefit. I also think the > lldb conventions for naming things are much clearer than the llvm ones. > Knowing that something is a ivar by looking at the name is a real timesaver, > especially for people new to the code. Being able to tell local variables > from other entities by looking also makes reading code much easier. Etc... > > I would be willing to discuss reformatting the llvm codebase to follow the > lldb conventions, however... > > Jim Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D101627/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D101627 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
