ir: rename NewFunction to NewFunc about llvm HOT 3 CLOSED

Just want to question a4f2487. Is there a good rationale for it? One rule I try to abide by is "only have one name for a thing, to the extent it is possible". So it should be type Func xor func NewFunction.

I'd say it's a good rule in general. The reason really is that we will end up typing ir.NewFunc quite often, and thus making it shorter makes it more pleasant to use. This is analogous to the func keyword in Go.

As for having the same name for the type as the construction, sure. We already have another case where the constructor is an abbreviated version of the type name, ir.NewBlock returning *ir.BasicBlock.

There are also two constructors where the name does not match, but that is by design. ir.NewGlobalDecl and ir.NewGlobalDef both return *ir.Global.

from llvm.

I think I'm starting to lean more towards your suggestion, to make consistent use of one name throughout. I'd therefore like to get this in place before tagging the final v0.3 release.

The two primary API changes are as follows:

• rename type Function to type Func
• rename type BasicBlock to type Block
• rename func NewGlobalDecl to func NewGlobal
  • keep func NewGlobalDef as a more specialized constructor for creating global variable definitions. It is also possible to use the Init field directly, e.g. g := ir.NewGlobal("foo", types.I32); g.Init = constant.NewInt(types.I32, 42)

If we find any other inconsistent use of naming, lets add it to this issue.

from llvm.

I think we can close this issue as the constructor and type names are now consistent. If we find any others, we can simply re-open it later. Thanks for reporting it @pwaller!

from llvm.