Rename SMTChecker to SolCMC across codebase and docs

[furmak331]

I've completed the renaming of SMTChecker to SolCMC across the codebase and documentation.
It was mentioned in the issue #15875.
The build completes successfully after these changes.
Let me know if its properly done .
Please review and let me know if anything needs to be adjusted. Thanks!

[github-actions]

Thank you for your contribution to the Solidity compiler! A team member will follow up shortly.

If you haven't read our contributing guidelines and our review checklist before, please do it now, this makes the reviewing process and accepting your contribution smoother.

If you have any questions or need our help, feel free to post them in the PR or talk to us directly on the #solidity-dev channel on Matrix.

[blishko]

There is something wrong with your changes.
It seems you are changing something in pretty much every file in the codebase, which is certainly not correct.
Please, try to have a look and only modify what really needs to be modified.

[furmak331]

sorry @blishko
You're right . it looks like a large number of files were marked as modified, even though I didn’t intend to change their content. this probably happened because of line ending conversion (LF vs CRLF) on my system.Maybe git automatically changed the line endings to CRLF when I touched those files locally, which made it appear as though they were modified.
I'll fix this by configuring Git to use the correct line endings and resubmit the PR with only the necessary changes.

[blishko]

Indeed this looks like line ending issue.

[furmak331]

just corrected it the line endings but it seems that there seems much more occurences than what i have changed.
Please check the image attached which displays around 1.5K files .Should i change them all to SolCMC?

[blishko]

The diff now seems much more reasonable. I am not sure what are the 1.5k files you mention in the screenshot.
Even with your current proposed changes, not all of them should be changed. For example the name should not be changed in the Changelog.
Similarly, the change in pragma is not this straightforward. We need to discuss how exactly we should proceed here.
Overall, this change needs more methodical approach, it is not a simple renaming.

[furmak331]

Yes i should have done it properly rather than renaming randomly . i did it in a bit hurry and started renaming.
I should rename where it is semantically correct (e.g., class names, file names related to the checker itself).
i will avoid changing occurrences like Changelog history or unrelated comments.
and have to be careful with pragma or public-facing references where backward compatibility or historical correctness is important.
Is that how we should proceed ?
Please guide me a bit regarding this.

[blishko]

You can start with renaming in the documentation. That should be safe.
As I said, we have to discuss the implication with respect to the existing pragma.
This change was meant for 0.9., which is still some time away.

[furmak331]

For now ,I’ve renamed all occurrences of smtchecker in the documentation files under the docs/ directory.
I’ve avoided touching any code files or pragma changes for now, as discussed. Please let me know if any adjustments are needed.

[blishko]

Hi @furmak331 , after some discussion, the situation is as follows:
To prevent unnecessary inconsistencies, we cannot rename SMTChecker before we can drop the SMTChecker pragma.
And that is a breaking change, that's why it has been planned for 0.9.

So this has to be a two-step change (dropping pragma and then renaming) and it cannot be done at the moment.

[furmak331]

Thanks @blishko for explaining! I understand now why the rename can't be done immediately.We can close this PR for now right? I'll look for other issues to work on.
Would you recommend any other open issues ?

[blishko]

Yes, I suggest to close this one for now.
I don't have any recommendations at the moment, unfortunately.