Subject: Re: some comments about our C++ code...
From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Tue Apr 17 2001 - 14:18:54 CDT
At 10:17 AM 4/16/01 +0200, jskov@zoftcorp.adsl.dk wrote:
>>>>>> "Dom" == Dom Lachowicz <cinamod@hotmail.com> writes:
>Dom> foo_type getFoo(void) const; void setFoo(foo_type);
>
>Dom> That's all I have to say. Using protected for anything other than
>Dom> methods is horrible and should be considered wrong/bad code.
>
>Worth adding as a coding standard element, maybe?
Like Martin, I'm one of the long-time practitioners of the existing
"horrible" coding style, so it's obviously never bothered me personally. I
certainly have no objections to anyone who wants to do the extra upfront
work to implement "better" get/set interfaces. Currently some people do, in
fact.
To be clear. I'd be willing to live with the proposed change to the coding
standards, with the following proviso:
Fix the existing code to match the standard *first*.
It's no use having a standard if large swathes of our existing code don't
meet it.
Paul,
code janitor
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Apr 17 2001 - 14:11:25 CDT