Re: Re: Review: Boost Coding Guidelines

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-26 18:09:26

>   From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
[const placement]
>Anyway, I doubt this particular point will ever be agreed upon, except if we
>say that any form is permissible. I find the pre-qualifier form more
>readable myself, but as you say it's less consistent. I'm still trying to
>wean myself from it.

I wouldn't bother: the claim that it is less consistent is something of
a myth >:-> I would suggest sticking with the conventional and more
readable form, rather than seeking out new and fashionable impediments
to understanding!

As the base natural language of C++ and Boost is English, I personally
prefer to stick to the more easily communicated form, whether written or
spoken, where the adjective precedes the noun -- it's a const int not an
int const.

At best having the qualifier follow the base type name is an alternative
to the conventional form, at worst it is rampant political correctness
without the correctness. Neither of these perspectives suggest that it
is a best practice ready for inclusion in coding guidelines. I would
suggest that rather than spark a slow-burning flame the recommendation
of qualifier placement should be dropped entirely from the guidelines --
as you say, it is doubtful that this point will ever be agreed upon.

Kevlin
____________________________________________________________

  Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
  mailto:kevlin_at_[hidden]     mobile: [phone]
  http://www.curbralan.com        fax:    [phone]
  Curbralan: Consultancy + Training + Development + Review
____________________________________________________________