Fix static function names in CodingStandards examples.

Try not to violate conventions immediately before explaining them.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@164278 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit is contained in:
Andrew Trick 2012-09-20 02:01:06 +00:00
parent e603fe4664
commit 331e8fb760

View File

@ -601,9 +601,9 @@ code to be structured like this:
.. code-block:: c++
/// ListContainsFoo - Return true if the specified list has an element that is
/// containsFoo - Return true if the specified list has an element that is
/// a foo.
static bool ListContainsFoo(const std::vector<Bar*> &List) {
static bool containsFoo(const std::vector<Bar*> &List) {
for (unsigned i = 0, e = List.size(); i != e; ++i)
if (List[i]->isFoo())
return true;
@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ code to be structured like this:
}
...
if (ListContainsFoo(BarList)) {
if (containsFoo(BarList)) {
...
}
@ -1120,7 +1120,7 @@ good:
};
} // end anonymous namespace
static void Helper() {
static void runHelper() {
...
}
@ -1140,7 +1140,7 @@ This is bad:
bool operator<(const char *RHS) const;
};
void Helper() {
void runHelper() {
...
}
@ -1150,7 +1150,7 @@ This is bad:
} // end anonymous namespace
This is bad specifically because if you're looking at "``Helper``" in the middle
This is bad specifically because if you're looking at "``runHelper``" in the middle
of a large C++ file, that you have no immediate way to tell if it is local to
the file. When it is marked static explicitly, this is immediately obvious.
Also, there is no reason to enclose the definition of "``operator<``" in the