labath wrote: > > * since this seems like a perfect opportunity to bikesh^Wdiscuss the names, > > I'm going to ask if there's any appetite for shortening some of the new > > factory functions. `Status::FromErrorStringWithFormatv` is a bit of a > > mouthful, so I was thinking if we could use something shorter instead > > (`Status::FromFormatv` or even `Status::Formatv`) ? > > I picked these names, because they are in line with the old names, which made > the regex replacement feasible. Renaming them afterwards is going to be > easier. My 2 cents on the naming: I had `Status::FromFormatv` in a previous > iteration of this patch and changed my mind, because it doesn't indicate that > this is going to be an error. What do you think about the slightly shorter > `Status::ErrorFromFromatv()`?
I think it's better (because its shorter), though it's still a bit long for my taste. FWIW, I don't find the short name at all confusing, because my mental model of these error types is (and all types I know behave that way) is that they have only one "success" value, and everything else represents some kind of an error/failure. So, when I see anything more complicated than `Status()` (or whatever the final API is for constructing success values), I immediately expect an error status. I guess one difference is that I'm used to working with `absl::Status` (which I believe was zturner's inspiration for this name), so "status" feels just like a synonym for "error" to me. If you think having the word "error" in the name helps, I'd also be fine with `Status::Errorf` and `Status::Errorv` (for printf vs formatv styles) or something like that. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106163 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
