mirror of
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git
synced 2024-11-02 07:22:42 +00:00
869529a130
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 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| llvm-wrapper | ||
| src | ||
| build.rs | ||
| Cargo.toml | ||