Re: [boost] Coding guidelines - comments

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-06 09:39:22

OK, I agree with Peter on this point.

-Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>

> From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> > From: "Vesa Karvonen" <vesa.karvonen_at_[hidden]>
> > > I'm not really convinced that this is a benefit. I really don't like
the
> > idea
> > > of having some obscure bug, that would have been indicated by a
warning,
> > > hidden in Boost because of using <...>.
> >
> > I thoroughly agree. This argues pretty strongly against <...> for boost.
> Of
> > course, there are other good arguments for <...>, so by saying that, I
am
> > not voting.
>
> This particular kind of warning ('remark' by the EDG terminology) rarely
> indicates a bug. Examples:
>
> struct X: Y // access control not specified, 'public' by default
>
> class X: public Y // Y used as a base but has no virtual destructor
>
> f(g(), h()); // arguments evaluated in unspecified order
>
> They are more like coding guidelines than warnings. The presumption is
that
> <...> authors don't need style advice.
>
> If you _insist_ on getting style advice, you may use the "..." form in
unit
> tests.
>
> --
> Peter Dimov
> Multi Media Ltd.
>
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Unsubscribe:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>