[gdal-dev] Starting a discussion on style and coding guidelines
schwehr at gmail.com
Mon May 9 10:02:21 PDT 2016
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?
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 :)...
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
> 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
> >> 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
> > 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...
More information about the gdal-dev