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

Kurt Schwehr 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
> 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

> >  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>

More information about the gdal-dev mailing list