On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/25/2015 12:28 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
>> Sorry in advance for inviting a bikeshed discussion, but while making
>> the hashing changes that I just committed, I noticed that the C++ification
>> has been done in a variety of different styles. I ended up having to
>> follow
>> the "do what the surrounding code does" principle that some code bases
>> have,
>> but to me that's always seemed like an admission of failure. One of the
>> strengths of the GCC code base was always that it was written in a very
>> consistent style. Regardless of what you think of that style (I
>> personally
>> like it, but I know others don't at all), it was always easy to work on
>> a new area of the compiler without having to learn how the surrounding
>> code
>> preferred to format things. It would be a shame if we lost that in the
>> rush to make everything "more C++".
>>
>> The three main inconsistencies I saw were:
>>
>> (1) Should inline member functions be implemented inside the class or
>> outside
>> the class? If inside, should they be formatted like this:
>>
>> void
>> foo (args...)
>> {
>> ...;
>> }
>>
>> or like this:
>>
>> void
>> foo (args...)
>> {
>> ...;
>> }
>>
>> (both have been used).
>>
>> The coding standard is pretty clear about this one:
>>
>> Define all members outside the class definition. That is, there
>> are no function bodies or member initializers inside the class
>> definition.
>>
>> But in-class definitions have become very common. Do we want
>> to revisit this? Or do we just need more awareness of what the
>> rule is supposed to be?
>>
>> [Personally I like the rule. The danger with in-class definitions
>> is that it becomes very hard to see the interface at a glance.
>> It obviously makes things more verbose though.]
>
> I'd say let's go with the existing rule. I know that in-class definitions
> are relatively common, particularly if they are trivial, so do we want an
> exception for anything that fits on a single line?
I think so. Similar for constructors with only : initializers and otherwise
empty body.
Richard.
>
>>
>> (2) Is there supposed to be a space before a template parameter list?
>> I.e. is it:
>>
>> foo<bar>
>>
>> or:
>>
>> foo <bar>
>>
>> ? Both are widely used.
>>
>> The current coding conventions don't say explicitly, but all the
>> examples use the second style. It's also more in keeping with
>> convention for function parameters. On the other hand, it could
>> be argued that the space in:
>>
>> foo <bar, frob>::thing
>>
>> makes the binding confusing and looks silly compared to:
>>
>> foo<bar, frob>::thing
>>
>> But there again, the second one might look like two unrelated
>> blobs at first glance.
>
> I'd go with whatever gnu-ident does with these things. I'd hate for us to
> settle on a style that requires non-default behaviour from gnu-indent.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> (3) Do we allow non-const references to be passed and returned by
>> non-operator functions? Some review comments have pushed back
>> on that, but some uses have crept in.
>>
>> [IMO non-const references are too easy to misread as normal
>> parameters.]
>>
>> In all three cases, whether the answer is A or B is less important
>> than whether the answer is the same across the code base.
>
> I could make an argument either way on this one...
>
> jeff
>
