bots when using the standard library facilities. The missing pieces here
aren't always in useful discreet chunks.

Fortunately, the missing pieces are few and far between, and we can
emulate most of them in our headers as needed.

Based on feedback from Lang and Dave.

llvm-svn: 202548

llvm-svn: 202538

llvm-svn: 202537

llvm-svn: 202532

A lot of this is writing down common knowledge and things often
communicated on mailing lists and in discussions. It could live in the
Programmer's Manual alternatively, but that felt slightly less
well-fitting.

It also includes (and was motivated by) the section on the relevant
language standards for LLVM and the specific features that will be
enabled with the switch to C++11.

With this, all of the documentation for the C++11 switch is, I think, in
place. I plan to flip the switch RSN. =]

llvm-svn: 202497

standards.

It claims the document intentionally doesn't give fixed standards for
brace placement or spacing, and then the document goes on to do
precisely that in several places. Instead, try to highlight that even
these rules are simply *guidance* which may be trumped by some other
circumstance or the local conventions of code.

I'm not trying to change the thrust of this part of the document, and if
folks think this does so, I'm happy to re-wordsmith it. I just don't
want it to be so self-contradicting.

llvm-svn: 202495

coding standards, and instead fix the existing section.

Thanks to Daniel Jasper for pointing out we already had a section
devoted to this topic. Instead of adding sections, just hack on this
section some. Also fix the example in the anonymous namespace section
below it to agree with the new advice.

As a re-cap, this switches the LLVM preferred style to never indent
namespaces. Having two approaches just led to endless (and utterly
pointless) debates about what was "small enough". This wasn't helping
anyone. The no-indent rule is easy to understand and doesn't really make
anything harder to read. Moreover, with tools like clang-format it is
considerably nicer to have simple consistent rules.

llvm-svn: 199637

(and to mention namespace ending comments). This is based on a quick
discussion on the developer mailing list where there was essentially no
objections to a simple and consistent rule. This should avoid future
debates about whether or not a namespace is "big enough" to indent. It
also matches clang-format's current behavior with LLVM source code which
hasn't really seen any opposition in code reviews that I spot checked.

llvm-svn: 199620

This patch tries to avoid unrelated changes other than fixing a few
hyphen-related ambiguities and contractions in nearby lines.

llvm-svn: 196471

This is under active discussion.

llvm-svn: 189730

implementation files.  While doc generation systems don't need this,
humans do benefit from it.  Not everyone reads all code through doxygen.

llvm-svn: 189704

llvm-svn: 187902

definition

Current practice is not to use 'inline' in:

  class Foo {
  public:
    inline void bar() {
      // ...
    }
  };

llvm-svn: 174317

llvm-svn: 173103

Before we learned about :doc:, we used :ref: and put a dummy link at the
top of each page. Don't do that anymore.

This fixes PR14891 as a special case.

llvm-svn: 172162

trivially achievable with an editor. I'll likely check in a silly python
script to help with this too.

llvm-svn: 169107

Some variables in code examples were not LikeThis.

llvm-svn: 168275

llvm-svn: 168271

llvm-svn: 166821

obvious stuff and most new code being committed conforms to that.  Some old
code does not; this might cause confusion and this is the motivation to
document the correct guidelines.

llvm-svn: 166378

llvm-svn: 164964

llvm-svn: 164920

Wordsmithing by Matt Beaumont-Gay in response to r164389.

llvm-svn: 164395

llvm-svn: 164389

llvm-svn: 164311

Try not to violate conventions immediately before explaining them.

llvm-svn: 164278

llvm-svn: 164126

llvm-svn: 164101

llvm-svn: 158880

llvm-svn: 158877

llvm-svn: 158786