Geometry Boost List: [ggl] Reviewing GGL against Boost requirements

Subject: [ggl] Reviewing GGL against Boost requirements
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz)
Date: 2009-04-20 07:15:40

Barend Gehrels wrote:
> 
>>
>>> One thing about 80 characters: this guideline in much more easy to
>>> follow when namespaces are not indented. It's the case in a lot of
>>> Boost code and it's quite accepted in the C++ community. So given the
>>> number of nested namespaces we sometimes have in GGL we could do that
>>> as well. I've never noticed any particular problem of readability in
>>> code I've written that way.
>>
>> So, we're going to not to indent code on namespace level, right?
> 
> OK.

OK

>> namespace a {
>>
>> class T
>> {
>> public:
>>     void foo();
>> protected:
>>     void bar();
>> private:
>>     std::size_t count_;
>> };
>>
>> } // namespace a
> 
> Few things about this:
> - I prefer a struct above a class because, especially in templates, many 
> is public, often there is no protected / private at all
> - T in lowercase
> - I've always used the m_ prefix for member variables, don't know where 
> it comes from. Find them much more readable. The boost sample header 
> gives no prefix/suffix at all. However, the m_ prefix is used in some 
> (not many) boost libraries as well (e.g. math/tools/remez). So here I 
> prefer to keep them, at least in this refactoring round
> - In case of a template, I prefer the "typename" above the "class" 
> (unless, of course, if it is required as in template template parameters)
> [...]

Sure, agreed.

The snippet I pasted was supposed to show indentation only,
not all-in-one coding style.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net