Subject: Re: some comments about our C++ code...
From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Thu Apr 19 2001 - 19:04:30 CDT
At 04:01 PM 4/18/01 +0200, Joaquin Cuenca Abela wrote:
>On 17 Apr 2001 12:18:54 -0700, Paul Rohr wrote:
>> 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*.
>
>I don't think that it should be a must to fix "the standard".
>If all we agree (and it seems that we agree) that having
>public/protected variables or public virtual methods is bad,
Actually, we don't all agree. Not yet. As mentioned, I've been perfectly
happy with the existing practice. I was one of the people who -- right or
wrong -- collectively chose to write several hundred thousand LOC that way.
I may be wrong on some or all of this, but so far I see no need to make this
change.
However, if it's important enough to others that they're willing to make the
current sources compliant with the proposed standard, then I'll stay out of
their way. Gladly.
>I think
>that we should reflect it in the standard, and ask to everybody to not
>commit code that not fit in the standard.
>
>And try to fix existing code, of course, but in the same sense that I
>find useful to have a standard that says how we should indent, name the
>variables, etc. *even* if we have large chunks of code that don't follow
>current standard (it's only me, or everybody is finding/fixing bad
>indentation? And, yes, my editor is correctly configured :-)
>
>To delay the integration in the standard of these rules only helps to
>get more code to be fixed in the future (and unlike the indentation, the
>not public/protected stuff is *NOT* stylistic stuff)
Then we disagree. For me a standard is a standard, period, or else it's
worthless.
When the indentation standard was written, every line of code in the abi
tree met that standard. Since then, some of us have broken that standard --
whether deliberately or inadvertently, I have no idea. If you want to know
who, use cvsblame. If anyone's *still* breaking the standard, it's time to
ask for help, or make an argument that the standard be replaced.
Remember my stance on UT_Bool vs. bool? I didn't mind the current practice,
but others did the work to make sure that the change was safe, and then made
it. Now we have a new standard, and we're all better off.
If this one isn't important enough to fix, then it shouldn't be a standard.
Paul,
also fixing indents as he finds them
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Apr 19 2001 - 18:56:52 CDT