From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-24 08:14:10
At 03:42 PM 11/23/2000 -0800, Jesse Jones wrote:
>>>6) Replaced NULL with 0 (Gregor says NULL was causing problems with
>>>This change stinks. :-)
>>Couldn't disagree more :-> NULL is, depending on your sensibilities,
>>either a C-ism or an MS-ism, but it's not generally considered part of
>>the received C++ style.
>You're painting with an awfully broad brush here. :-) Plenty of people
>think the way C overloads 0 impairs readibility.
You may be right about overloading, but nonetheless Kevlin is correct that
"NULL [is] not generally considered part of the received C++ style."
(I think the translation from UK English to American English is something
like "NULL [is] not generally considered part of good C++ style, as taught
by acknowledged experts.")
>>Speaking of stylistic elements, is it possible to move the code towards
>>more conventional C++ naming? Eg function objects instead of functors (a
>>bit early 90s, that ;->) and member functions instead of methods? Not a
>>big issue, but it affects my comfort level :-)
>Well the current names are just as clear as what you're proposing and
>they happen to be shorter...
"Methods" is only clear to a portion of the C++ community, and on top of
that sounds pretty dated to my ear.
Both of those issues are yesterday's battles. Those who happened to be on
the losing side just need to move on, rather than fighting the same old
fights over and over again.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk