Subject: Re: some comments about our C++ code...
From: Joaquin Cuenca Abela (cuenca@celium.net)
Date: Fri Apr 20 2001 - 03:46:22 CDT
On 19 Apr 2001 17:04:30 -0700, Paul Rohr wrote:
> 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
ok, I will change my sentence.
If the majority agree...
> 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.
So far, I've not seen a *single* argument to keep with current standard.
> 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.
If you're saying that the standard is 100% useless if it's not applied
to the 100% of the code, then you can take all the rules of the current
standard and throw it to a trash can.
> 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.
It's important enough to fix. Even more than bool or indentantion imo.
But no perl script can fix this issue in a sec. So I still ask for a
change in the written standard, and I ask to everybody to try to follow
it, and to threat the stuff that doesn't follow the standard as bugs.
Cheers,
-- Joaquín Cuenca Abela cuenca@celium.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Apr 20 2001 - 03:47:18 CDT