I'd agree; I find that typedefs like GeometryPtr generally obfuscate things. Although one can guess, it's not immediately obvious if GeometryPtr means Geometry*, unique_ptr<Geometry>, shared_ptr<Geometry>, or something else.
Dan On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:46 PM Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca> wrote: > std::unique_ptr<Geometry> ? > > We've got a mishmash in the code base, what should it be? > As a learner arriving at the code base, std::unique_ptr<Geometry> would > have been easier, since then the semantics of the thing are more > immediately transparent then. After working with it for a while, that's > less of an issue because I've internalized the fact that GeometryPtr is a > std::unique_ptr, but still. > > The best code styleguide is a consistent code base, so deciding and then > globally changing makes the most sense, IMO. > > P. > _______________________________________________ > geos-devel mailing list > geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
_______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
