[gdal-dev] Starting a discussion on style and coding guidelines
tkeitt at utexas.edu
Sat May 7 14:57:20 PDT 2016
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> wrote:
> On 6 May 2016 at 21:55, Kurt Schwehr <schwehr at gmail.com> wrote:
> > My belief is that for this particular proposal, we should not have the
> > C++11/14 discussion unless the best overall solution requires a newer
> > version of C++. The solution I propose to be the best works in C++03 and
> > newer.
> Simply, the initial proposal was quite confusing.
> The 'title' said indicated it was "mostly focused on C++11/14 & C99/11",
> while the content mentioned mostly the std::vector as malloc'ed arrays
> Considering current codebase, GDAL is written in C and compiled in C++.
> The only major C++ feature used in GDAL is classes and polymorphism.
> I'm not sure if the facts mentioned in the proposal, namely
> "Want to focus on maintainability and readability of code",
> is meant to be a fact or a goal.
> If you ask any seasoned C programmer for opinion, I bet she will
> consider GDAL codebase as clear and readable.
> If you ask a C++ programmer, the answer might be different.
> IMO, I doubt any C++11/14 feature will increase the current code,
> unless it is considered to ditch many of CPL features and replace
> them with C++ standard features (string bashing operations, string
> containers for other types, threading API, etc.).
That's exactly my preference. For those of us who have to remember too many
things, using the standard library is a godsend because it is exceptionally
well documented online and used in many places.
> Certainly, any new line to be written may benefit from auto,
> constexpr, using, nullptr, range loops - but for a "C with classes"
> codebase as GDAL, it would be cosmetic improvement, if any.
It is true that unless you refactor along the lines of Boost, then these
features are not used as effectively.
> Surely, the override and final will help compiler to catch potential bugs.
> Also, C++11/14 compilation mode is generally stricter, so it might
> help to catch bugs.
My experience with C++11 is that it is vastly less error prone and more
readable. But of course there is a big cost to rewriting code, so I
understand the conundrum.
> Simply, the whole proposal is becoming vague.
> Best regards,
> Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gdal-dev