I think this veers off into territory that should be avoided for this project.
I am not against having coding standards. Not at all. But Thrift is a fairly mature product. Disregarding new language support, I suspect that the bulk of the future coding required will be bug fixes. If that is true, then the best thing to do is to preserve the style that you find in the code you are modifying. The last thing I would want to see is that someone fixes a bug in the compiler or adds a new feature and uses a style totally foreign to what was originally used. When I delve into the compiler code I remember that it has its peculiarities and my mind shifts into "compiler dev mode". If I look at the library code I gradually shift into "library dev mode". Neither of those are what I prefer or dictate when I set the coding standards, but they maintain the original style. That's a good thing. And Heaven forbid if coding standards are written and someone decides to change existing code to conform to them. You do NOT change working, tested code just because you don't agree with its style. That's just asking for problems. I don't usually play this card, but I am speaking from 42 years of experience writing software. I feel that you're just going to waste time and effort. That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth. - Rush On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:28 AM, Ben Craig wrote: > I haven't seen any explicit coding standards. I have a minor preference > for using whatever the "local" style already is, but it isn't a large > concern of mine. > > Konrad Grochowski <hc...@minions.org.pl> wrote on 09/26/2014 08:03:45 AM: > >> From: Konrad Grochowski <hc...@minions.org.pl> >> To: dev@thrift.apache.org, >> Date: 09/26/2014 08:04 AM >> Subject: C++ coding standards >> >> Hey, >> >> Are C++ coding standards for thrift defined anywhere? I see that lib/cpp > >> looks like this 'ClassName::methodName' but compiler code look more like > >> 't_class_name::method_name'. I definitely prefer first style, but >> currently I'm playing around compiler. Can I use 'lib' style, assuming >> that's more recent and compiler code will move toward that look? >> >> -Konrad
