This revision improves the description of the implicit template argument NAME in the TableGen "Programmer's Reference."
It also uses the term "parent class" consistently.
Paths
| Differential D100867
[TableGen] [docs] Improve description of NAME in Programmer's Reference ClosedPublic Authored by Paul-C-Anagnostopoulos on Apr 20 2021, 10:09 AM.
Details Summary This revision improves the description of the implicit template argument NAME in the TableGen "Programmer's Reference." It also uses the term "parent class" consistently.
Diff Detail
Unit TestsFailed Event TimelinePaul-C-Anagnostopoulos created this revision.
Comment Actions The more I think about it, the more I like "parent class" rather than "base class." It's the only term that seems like it could apply to a record's class. Let me look at the uses and see if some or most can just use the term "class." Comment Actions I'm going to stick with "parent class," but if there are any sentences that talk only about records, I will try to use just "class." I will add a note at the appropriate spot explaining this. Comment Actions
Fair enough. I wouldn't mind @lattner 's take on this since he's probably got some history & more context with the naming. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Apr 21 2021, 10:18 AM Comment Actions I added a note about the term "parent class." It proved futile to try to remove the word "parent" in certain sentences. Many pertain to both classes and records. And those that don't just seemed to become inconsistent when I tried to remove the word. This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds.Apr 23 2021, 6:49 AM Closed by commit rG6a067cdb06a0: [TableGen] [docs] Improve description of NAME in Programmer's Reference (authored by Paul-C-Anagnostopoulos). · Explain Why This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Revision Contents
Diff 339605 llvm/docs/TableGen/ProgRef.rst
|
Not sure how the wording is used in other parts of the TableGen docs, but since LLVM's a C++ oriented project, maybe we should standardize/lean towards the C++ terminology as being the canonical one, which would be "base" class?