Re: [boost] Review: Boost Coding Guidelines

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-16 15:49:14

From: David Abrahams <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Mark Rodgers" <mark.rodgers_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [boost] Review: Boost Coding Guidelines
> 
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> There's something to be said for saying what you mean!

In my experience with corporate standards it has been helpful
to distinguish "standards" and "guidelines".  Where standards
are to be followed in almost all cases, but guidelines are
suggestions open to the discretion of the engineer.  At Oracle
we enforce the "standards" with a customized lint program.