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
>> operator bool(). (Unlike bool the const void* one won't implicitly
>> 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
>> 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-
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...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk