Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads draft library submission

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-16 10:18:23

At 09:55 AM 3/16/2001, williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:

 >--- In boost_at_y..., Jesse Jones <jejones_at_a...> wrote:
 >> 6) It's better to provide an operator const void*() method instead
 >of
 >> operator bool(). (Unlike bool the const void* one won't implicitly
 >convert
 >> to umpteen different types).
 >
 >This argument has come up on here before, and I'm not 100% sure that
 >a consensus opinion was reached on this.  Conversion to bool is more
 >natural to my mind, and the implicit conversion "to umpteen different
 >types" doesn't seem to dangerous to me... at least in this case.
 >Changing this will be trivial, so I'll defer to the "experts"
 >opinions on this, but I'm not sure that they've fully agreed with
 >each other in the past.  Am I wrong?

As people become sensitized to a practice that is sometimes dangerous, 
somebody questions it every time they see it.  You spend a lot of time 
explaining that this isn't one of those cases where it is 
dangerous.  Sometimes it is just easier to use the always safe flavor and 
save yourself  time.

 >> 9) I think the code would be clearer if member data names were
 >decorated
 >> somehow, eg fCount, mCount, _count, etc. :-)
 >
 >Stylistic suggestion, typically not entertained by Boost
 >submissions.  However, I'm interested in this topic and wouldn't mind
 >hearing what others have to say on this, even if it's in private e-
 >mail.

Yes, it is stylistic so anything reasonable is acceptable.  I've personally 
become used to the _count style, and feel most programmers will understand 
it right away when they see it.  It fits well with the other naming 
conventions we use. But each to his own...

--Beman