Wizard added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45392#1060971, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> 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. Yes I understand but I mean "flexibility of configuration" is one of the reasons of handling of various types of identifiers in same check, but we don't need it here. 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
