|
|
Geometry : |
Subject: [ggl] Reviewing GGL against Boost requirements
From: Barend Gehrels (Barend.Gehrels)
Date: 2009-04-30 07:18:53
>>> If these are the guidelines we'll follow them. Alas they don't give a
>>> number of spaces but let's take 4, as this is used in MPL and probably
>>> everywhere. So re-tabbing is not necessary.
>>>
>> OK. Four is perfect for me.
>>
>
> Yep I had seen this divergence from Boost guidelines when I joined the
> project. Didn't do anything at that moment but I knew it would be
> necessary in case of inclusion into Boost. And if you want to follow
> the 80 characters guideline, it's necessary to not use tabs, for
> obvious reasons. So let's go ahead and replace tabs by 4 spaces.
>
> 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.
>
I'm doing some more implementations and at the same time try to conform
the touched sources to the new guidelines.
The CamelCase template parameters are fine for me.
Indentation makes it (my opinion) a bit less readable but is OK for me,
I'll get used to it.
What I really find hard is the 80 characters. Even if namespaces are not
indented.
I tried to adapt and nearly all lines get broken in the most weirdest
places, and/or spread over four lines. I just checked the Boost
libraries and all the libraries I checked (mpl, lambda, proto, variant,
spirit) do NOT follow it.
So I suggest we'll be not too strict here. We're living in 2009, 80
characters per line should be really over and done now.
Regards, Barend
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/ggl/attachments/20090430/1274fb2a/attachment.html
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net