From: Toon Knapen (toon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-05 13:47:28
David Abrahams wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Toon Knapen" <toon_at_[hidden]>
> > 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 MixedCase
> for type names until I started working here, where much code will probably
> be boostified), but I do think it makes the transition into the standard
> 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 do care since I would like to fully adopt the guidelines and also
think the guidelines should be well designed to meet also the criteria
for multi-million codeline projects (as is C++ itself)
I still prefer uppercase first letter for classes. That if the library
would be later accepted into the standard and the class needs to be all
lowercase : so be it. The namespace will also be changed at that point
... so some adaption will always be required. The standard library will
probably also be small enough to prevent such clashes. Big projects on
top of the standard library probably not.
That much of existing code would have to be adapted is not a real
argument is it. Your intention is to define well engineered guidelines
to be used in the future. Don't blur your design with the past.
Certainly in this case where you just have to spend a day max to convert
to the new guidelines.
> > > > 7.1):Use ``//'' to delimit comments in lieu of ``/*...*/''
> > > >
> > > > We and many other projects use for instance doxygen for generating
> > > > documentation. Doxygen (and other similar tools) needs the java-style
> > > > commenting using /** ... */. So could we also allow this in the
> > > > guidelines ? I know, it's a bit awkward to change rules to the
> > > > of some tools but this type of comment has also become quit standard.
> > >
> > > Doxygen also responds to ///...
> > > Are /** ... */ really needed for anything?
> > Yep, but this is for one-liners AFAIK. I'll have to check if this gives
> > the same results as /** ... */
> I think it works if the ///s are on consecutive lines, but I could be wrong.
you're right. I just tried it and it works.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk