r440284 adds "hash" to the list of blacklisted method names, but this list only affects *instance* methods.

The latest proposal is to blacklist renaming of "hash" regardless of whether it is a static or instance method + also blacklist renaming if it is a standalone function - https://codereview.chromium.org/2608443002

An alternative would be to rename either the |Hash| function (but |GetHash| is not an obvious name here) or the |DetailtHash<T>::Hash| typename (also no obvious name here + manually finding and renaming all the templates is a bit tricky).  I think just skipping the rename is easier.

The following revision refers to this bug:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/1b4b746ad2d2c288bdc568a046b2461b637a75fd

commit 1b4b746ad2d2c288bdc568a046b2461b637a75fd
Author: lukasza <lukasza@chromium.org>
Date: Wed Dec 28 19:16:50 2016

Blacklisting renaming of "hash" in case of static methods and functions.

BUG= 677166 

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2608443002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#440878}

[modify] https://crrev.com/1b4b746ad2d2c288bdc568a046b2461b637a75fd/tools/clang/rewrite_to_chrome_style/RewriteToChromeStyle.cpp
[modify] https://crrev.com/1b4b746ad2d2c288bdc568a046b2461b637a75fd/tools/clang/rewrite_to_chrome_style/tests/methods-expected.cc
[modify] https://crrev.com/1b4b746ad2d2c288bdc568a046b2461b637a75fd/tools/clang/rewrite_to_chrome_style/tests/methods-original.cc

nasko@, please reactivate if this comes back.

Aaand it is back...

If we blacklist renaming of "hash" method, then we have a problem in code generator for DOM bindings - we want the generator to consistently capitalize all method names, but this means that it will expect "Hash" as an implementation of "hash" attribute frmo Location.idl.

I am not sure what options we have at this point:

1. Preland renaming of "hash" method to something else.  "getHash"?  (this is probably slightly blocked on  issue 673039 )

2. Special case / blacklist "hash" also in the code generator?


Any option I am missing?  What do people think about "getHash" name in general?

getHash seems fine to me. I think this can be lumped in with all the other idl issues and we can use whatever general scheme here as well, unless there is something else special about "hash" that I am not seeing?

The following revision refers to this bug:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/0020d5c9503dd59d2caf28999aa38bc600206303

commit 0020d5c9503dd59d2caf28999aa38bc600206303
Author: nasko <nasko@chromium.org>
Date: Wed Jan 04 19:17:51 2017

Update methods requiring Get prefix to avoid collisions with Blink rewrite.

This CL adds a few more methods that cause name collisions when Blink
is rewritten to match Chromium style. In addition, it removes the hash
method from the blacklist.

BUG= 582312 ,  677166 

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2608423003
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#441429}

[modify] https://crrev.com/0020d5c9503dd59d2caf28999aa38bc600206303/tools/clang/rewrite_to_chrome_style/RewriteToChromeStyle.cpp
[modify] https://crrev.com/0020d5c9503dd59d2caf28999aa38bc600206303/tools/clang/rewrite_to_chrome_style/tests/methods-expected.cc
[modify] https://crrev.com/0020d5c9503dd59d2caf28999aa38bc600206303/tools/clang/rewrite_to_chrome_style/tests/methods-original.cc