Boost logo

Boost :

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-07-05 09:25:19

--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Toon Knapen" <toon_at_s...>
> > So my point is starting class-names with uppercase does no harm
(is even
> > usefull) while synching with the STL concerning memberfunctions
is still
> > a good idea.
> I don't care all that muchn (my personal standard has always been
> for type names until I started working here, where much code will
> be boostified), but I do think it makes the transition into the
> more difficult. For example, NumericTraits<int> or
Numeric_traits<int> looks
> weird next to iterator_traits<char*>. Also, in template
metaprogramming it
> is sometimes useful to blur the line between types, values, and
functions. I
> am not sure it is worth the costs, however.
> In any case, we would have to rewrite lots of boost code and break
lots of
> users' code to change this convention now. I think that's probably
the best
> argument for keeping it as is.

I actually think the conflicts are rare enough that this is a non-
issue. When the conflicts do arise you simply must choose a
different name for one of the conflicting entities. The suggestion
to change the type to *_t is one choice, the other would be to pick a
synonym or use the get_* wart for this one case in the function
name. Since the C++ standard has settled on this as their guidelines
we should follow suit. Existing Boost code is also a strong
argument. So let's leave well enough alone ;).

> > > > 7.1):Use ``//'' to delimit comments in lieu of ``/*...*/''
> > > >
> > > > We and many other projects use for instance doxygen for
> > > > documentation. Doxygen (and other similar tools) needs the
> of
> > > > commenting using /** ... */. So could we also allow this in
> > > > guidelines ? I know, it's a bit awkward to change rules to the
> protocol
> > > > of some tools but this type of comment has also become quit
> > >
> > > Doxygen also responds to ///...
> > > Are /** ... */ really needed for anything?
> >
> > Yep, but this is for one-liners AFAIK. I'll have to check if this
> > the same results as /** ... */
> I think it works if the ///s are on consecutive lines, but I could
be wrong.

You aren't wrong.

Bill Kempf

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at