diff options
| author | Jubilee Young <workingjubilee@gmail.com> | 2024-03-05 20:04:24 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Jubilee Young <workingjubilee@gmail.com> | 2024-03-05 21:15:56 -0800 |
| commit | 23623a08d6a181864a7b8609682eee27534b12f4 (patch) | |
| tree | 55d0d32ba1a20de225cf017178d3794afcf97a2e /compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/Linker.cpp | |
| parent | 3c029725f5a198f4ccb1332bece98c2b50dbce01 (diff) | |
| download | rust-23623a08d6a181864a7b8609682eee27534b12f4.tar.gz rust-23623a08d6a181864a7b8609682eee27534b12f4.zip | |
Explicitly assign constructed C++ classes
C++ style guides I am aware of recommend specifically preferring = syntax for any classes with fairly obvious constructors[^0] that do not perform any complicated logic in their constructor. I contend that all constructors that the `rustc_llvm` code uses qualify. This has only become more common since C++ 17 guaranteed many cases of copy initialization elision. The other detail is that I tried to ask another contributor with infinitely more C++ experience than me (i.e. any) what this constructor syntax was, and they thought it was a macro. I know of no other language that has adopted this same syntax. As the rustc codebase features many contributors experienced in many other languages, using a less... unique... style has many other benefits in making this code more lucid and maintainable, which is something it direly needs. [^0]: e.g. https://abseil.io/tips/88
Diffstat (limited to 'compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/Linker.cpp')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions
