Re: Review: Boost Coding Guidelines

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-07-16 15:59:51

--- In boost_at_y..., "Mark Rodgers" <mark.rodgers_at_c...> wrote:
> I feel we should reject this since I don't feel it is appropriate 
for
> Boost to mandate some of the things in these guidelines.  The 
> implementation of a Boost library is really up to the discretion of
> the submitter; if they happen to prefer foo_ to m_foo, then who are
> we to argue?
> 
> I realise that this is not the intention of the "guidelines", and 
> they are merely supposed to be suggestions, but I don't think they 
> will be seen that way.  

I feel we should accept the guidelines.  The document clearly states 
that the intent isn't to force a style on submitted libraries.  
However, having a Boost sanctioned guideline makes the code much 
easier to read and maintain if a library does follow some consistent 
style, not only with itself but with other Boost libraries as well.  
We can't hope to do this, however, unless there's an "official" 
suggestion for Boost.

Further, one goal of the Boost libraries is for them to be considered 
in future drafts of the standard.  It will be much easier on the 
comittee if any submissions are implemented in a style consistent 
with the style used by the standard itself.  Yes, some of the 
implementation details such as names of private data members won't 
mean much to the committee, but the public interface will.

Bill Kempf