As a long in the tooth C++'er, I like the proposed style guide.
I think point 11 is ok and used it myself on a v. big project with no ill
effects. I like the fact that it prevents scope hiding of local variables
with private attributes. Its better than having this.attribute everywhere
:-)
My preference is for block indent style #2 (flamebait!).
In fact I think that all blocks should be:
bla bla
{
bla bla
}
else
{
bla
}
I know people think its an aweful waste of space, but it's very consistent
and clear.
I agree that 4 space indenting is a must; and suggest everyone on the team
get this monitor immediately :-)
http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2006/02/dell_3007wfp_on_dell_2001fp_action_8_megapixel_desktop.html
Or the Apple 30'' cinema display. 2560x1600 coding heaven.
But I'm not coding the C++ broker, no it's just my 2c.
John
On 26/10/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan Conway wrote:
> With thanks to Kim for finding it, I'd like to propose
>
> http://geosoft.no/development/cppstyle.html
>
> As the style guide for QPID C++ with the exception that Qpid continue to
> use the .cpp file extension rather than .c++ It's not too far off the
> existing style and it's largely in agreement with styles I've seen used
> on other projects.
>
> Any objections?
I don't like point 11 at all. The scope of a variable should be obvious
without mangling the name. Leading or trailing underscores increase
noise in my opinion and reduce readability.
I also don't like 75 (& 81 which is more or less the same thing). The
rationale seems weak to me and it reduces readability (in my opinion).
I will be considering invoking points 1 & 2 in these cases!
Perhaps I have bad eyesight, but I also much prefer 4 spaces of
indentation. Maybe that is why 80 chars per line often seems to narrow!
