[gdal-dev] Starting a discussion on style and coding guidelines

[Kurt Schwehr]

All,

Just to be totally obvious and not meant to squash questions, comments,
concerns.  I'm trying to narrow the scope of this discussion.  <y choice of
title for this thread on the mailing list is not good.  Anyone object to me
starting a different subject line to continue the conversation on this
large object on the stack proposal?

Mateusz,

Sounds like we are on the right track now.  Hopefully, the proposal is
clearer after a few more changes just now.

My concern is that you seem to taking the discuss as the proposal and not
ready the proposal as stand alone: http://goo.gl/vuA3D6   (Especially after
I fixed the "Status:"... which I just changed again).  My intent was to
have a super narrow focus to the proposal, but be complete thereby letting
the reader know that I'm aware of alternatives.  I thought that this change
would make the scope crystal clear (obvious I was wrong :)...

https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/changeset/34177

unique_ptr was in there as an alternative.  The item you refer to was the
>>>side track<<< of C++11 in the mailing list.  It belongs as a separate
proposal dependent on a C++11 proposal.    And on the side track of C++11
support: I think your concerns are very valid.  Let's keep those to the C++
language version thread.

Anything in this thread is a great discussion, but is NOT the proposal.
That document never said that it is a justification in any way for C++11.

I added a note at the top to clarify.  The what if section is just food for
thought / completeness.  I regret having it there in the beginning, but I
might as well leave it now that the confusion already happened.

I'm happy to clarify the text in the proposal or give you comment/suggest
access to the doc.


> > No!  Out of scope of this proposal.  (For another proposal, then yes).
>
> Again, I have seen arguments like this
> https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/2016-May/044355.html
>
> But, OK, I assume it is no longer part of your proposal.
>

Never was part of the proposed solution for "Use vector<T>(length,
initial_value) for local blocks of storage."


>
> >> That's all I can see from most of the content there.
> >> (The many fine-grained details are not critical to make the actual
> >> 'big' decisions, those will come into play later.)
> >>
> >> So, as I have already mentioned, great.
> >> Now, let's decide wheter we switch to C++11 to get the necessary tools
> or
> >> implement our own tools, e.g. as part of CPL.
> >
> > No.  Please do not do that with my proposal.  That is way way too far
> out of
> > scope of what I intended for *this* proposal.
>
> I'm not doing anything with it.
> I'm just asking questions and stating my understanding of your goal,
> some I might have got wrong.
>
>
Please just take the text in the doc as the proposal.  Unless I copy text
from the mailing list to the doc, I don't consider it a part of the
proposal.


> >  Can we start with just this simple proposal?
>
> Sure. I have got my issues cleared, thanks.
>

Great!  Thanks for helping me improve the doc.


>
> Best regards,
> --
> Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20160509/d79bbf8b/attachment-0001.html>