JDevlieghere added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Interpreter/CommandInterpreter.cpp:2864
+ for (const auto &subcommand_name : subcommands_found) {
+ auto qualified_name = (command_name + " " + subcommand_name).str();
+ commands_found.AppendString(std::move(qualified_name));
----------------
kastiglione wrote:
> JDevlieghere wrote:
> > It's not obvious what type `qualified_name` is. I would either do:
> >
> > ```
> > std::string qualified_name = (command_name + " " +
> > subcommand_name).str();
> > ```
> >
> > or
> >
> > ```
> > auto qualified_name = std::string(command_name + " " +
> > subcommand_name);
> > ```
> As you've given feedback on use of `auto` before, should we document some
> standards around `auto`? It seems to vary in the code, and from person to
> person.
>
> I'm cool with explicit `std::string`, but I think a few bits of context here
> do indicate it's a string type (ex use of `.str()`, use of `+` and a string
> literal, being passed to `AppendString()`). I'm thinking that some of these
> could be documented as either sufficient or insufficient for `auto`.
>
> Somewhat separately, what do you think about adding `AppendString(const
> Twine&)` (D116682) and then making this:
>
> ```
> commands_found.AppendString(command_name + " " + subcommand_name);
> ```
The LLVM Coding Standards have a section on `auto`:
https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-auto-type-deduction-to-make-code-more-readable.
If it were any other type, I might agree with your argument, but we have a
bunch of "string" types (`std::string`, `llvm::StringRef` and
`lldb_private::ConstString` being the usual suspects) making it non-obvious.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116491/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D116491
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
