> Gabe
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:45 AM Giacomo Travaglini via gem5-dev <
> gem5-dev@gem5.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I agree with Daniel's analysis and solution, as enforcing snake_case for
> namespaces would probably make everyone happy.
> We could in theory ado
m one "convention" (PascalCase for namespaces is not
mentioned in our coding style) to the other, but I think it will complicate
things even further.
Kind Regards
Giacomo
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Lowe-Power via gem5-dev
> Sent: 03 May 2021 21:27
> To: g
gem5-dev@gem5.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I agree with Daniel's analysis and solution, as enforcing snake_case for
>> namespaces would probably make everyone happy.
>> We could in theory adopt namespace aliases for backward compatibility, to
>> trans
from one "convention" (PascalCase for namespaces is not
> mentioned in our coding style) to the other, but I think it will complicate
> things even further.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Giacomo
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jason Lowe-Po
er, but I think it will complicate
things even further.
Kind Regards
Giacomo
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Lowe-Power via gem5-dev
> Sent: 03 May 2021 21:27
> To: gem5 Developer List
> Cc: Jason Lowe-Power
> Subject: [gem5-dev] Re: gem5 namespace
>
> Hey
omo
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jason Lowe-Power via gem5-dev
> > Sent: 03 May 2021 21:27
> > To: gem5 Developer List
> > Cc: Jason Lowe-Power
> > Subject: [gem5-dev] Re: gem5 namespace
> >
> > Hey Daniel,
> >
> > Sorry,
ned in our coding style) to the other, but I think it will complicate
things even further.
Kind Regards
Giacomo
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Lowe-Power via gem5-dev
> Sent: 03 May 2021 21:27
> To: gem5 Developer List
> Cc: Jason Lowe-Power
> Subject: [gem5-dev
Hey Daniel,
Sorry, I didn't mean to add to the confusion :). I may have gotten my case
names confused! Also, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and effort
you're putting into this conversation! I believe I agree with your email
below.
I think that most people don't care that much (which is
I'm confused, Jason. I thought you were in favor of adopting snake case as a
"general convention" (i.e., "the google way"), so by adopting snake case we
would be adopting the "general convention", not forging our own path. However,
if by "general convention" you mean "the convention vastly
Just a few quick replies below. Overall, I think we're being too focused on
"standards" and not on enough on ease of use. It's not a problem if there
are exceptions to guidance, if there's good reasons for the exceptions.
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 11:36 AM Daniel Carvalho via gem5-dev <
As mentioned by Gabe in the Jira issue, some of the namespaces using snake
declared in the codebase case are defined as parts of a standard, and thus
cannot be modified. Realistically, this means that if we wanted to follow a
namespace naming convention, it'd be snake case: despite having way
up which is closely associated with the
>> other systemc namespaces and is named similarly to them for consistency.
>>
>> Gabe
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:51 AM Giacomo Travaglini <
>> giacomo.travagl...@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> My vote goes to 1 an
as well
>
> My sole argument is consistency; in general I'd rather start a namespace
> with a lowercase. So that when we have something
> like a scope resolution we know we are dealing with a namespace and not a
> class. But that's off-topic.
>
> Namespace names are anyway no
st of our namespaces follow the PascalCase type,
>though there are some namespaces using snake_case convention.
Giacomo
> -----Original Message-
> From: Gabe Black via gem5-dev
> Sent: 15 April 2021 09:03
> To: gem5 Developer List
> Cc: Gabe Black
> Subject: [gem5-dev] Re: g
is consistency; in general I'd rather start a namespace
>> with a lowercase. So that when we have something
>> like a scope resolution we know we are dealing with a namespace and not a
>> class. But that's off-topic.
>>
>> Namespace names are anyway not covered by our codi
entry.
>
> https://www.gem5.org/documentation/general_docs/development/coding_style/
>
> From a quick grep I can see most of our namespaces follow the PascalCase
> type, though there are some namespaces using snake_case convention.
>
> Giacomo
>
> > -Original Messag
: Gabe Black via gem5-dev
> Sent: 15 April 2021 09:03
> To: gem5 Developer List
> Cc: Gabe Black
> Subject: [gem5-dev] Re: gem5 namespace
>
> My vote is for 1 and A.
>
> We have style rules for a reason, and that is because not following them
> causes technical problems
a quick grep I can see most of our namespaces follow the PascalCase
> type, though there are some namespaces using snake_case convention.
>
> Giacomo
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gabe Black via gem5-dev
> > Sent: 15 April 2021 09:03
> > To: gem5 Develope
> -Original Message-
> From: Gabe Black via gem5-dev
> Sent: 15 April 2021 09:03
> To: gem5 Developer List
> Cc: Gabe Black
> Subject: [gem5-dev] Re: gem5 namespace
>
> My vote is for 1 and A.
>
> We have style rules for a reason, and that is because not following th
My vote is for 1 and A.
We have style rules for a reason, and that is because not following them
causes technical problems like name collisions, and makes it less obvious
when reading code what things are and what they're doing. It's a bit
hypocritical to say that we should follow style rules and
Thanks for putting this all together, Daniel!
My opinion is the same as yours: option 2 and macro A.
One other thing we need to do is to standardize and document when and where
you need to use the gem5 namespace. For instance, do we need to update
*all* headers to be in the gem5 namespace? If
21 matches
Mail list logo
