> On 5 Jun 2018, at 12:54 pm, bposteln...@mozilla.com wrote:
>
> I would like to resurrect this thread since it would help us a lot for bug
> 1453795 to come up to a consensus on when to use bracelets and when to use
> parenthesis. Also I must point out a thing here, that was also mentioned here
> earlier, that there are situations where we cannot use parenthesis. This is
> when we want to initialize a structure that doesn't have a ctor, like:
> [1]
> struct str {
> int a;
> int b;
> };
>
> class Str {
> str s;
> int a;
> public:
> Str() : s{0}, a(0) {}
> };
>
> Also it would help a lot if we would establish how many, spaces should be
> between the parenthesis or the bracelets, like how do we prefer [1] or [2]
>
> [2]
> class Str {
> str s;
> int a;
> public:
> Str() : s{ 0 }, a( 0 ) {}
> };
>
> I don't have a personal preference here, but right now there are several
> places in our code that combine spaces between parenthesis/bracelets with no
> spaces.The current coding style: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Coding_Style states to not use space. There’s no case where a parenthesis should be followed by a space. Many things wrong here: First the bracket { should be on a new line : class/struct str { … } Initialization are to be on multiple-lines. clang-format would have made it: class Str { str s; int a; public: Str() : s{ 0 } , a(0) { } }; IMHO, should be going for C++11 initializer, it’s much clearer, and avoid duplicated code when you need multiple constructors. What is str? I assume not a plain object, so it should have its own initializer. so it all becomes: class Str { str s; int a = 0; public: Str() {} }; or: class Str { str s; int a = 0; public: Str() = default; }; (and I prefer constructors to be defined at the start of the class definition) My $0.02
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
