> On March 30, 2017, 10:36 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> > src/checks/checker.cpp
> > Line 1 (original), 1 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58043/diff/1/?file=1679973#file1679973line1>
> >
> >     Since you focus on `std::string` and `testing::WithParamInterface` in 
> > this patch, could you make sure we have consistent `using` decls and 
> > stripped namespace qualifiers everywhere in the code base? We do not always 
> > us `using` decls for everything (sometimes it would just be confusing or 
> > cause clashes), but we should be able to treat the ones you tackle here 
> > consistently.
> >     
> >         % git grep std::string src | grep -v 'using' | grep -v '.hpp:' | wc 
> > -l
> >           94
> >           
> >         % git grep testing::WithParamInterface src | grep -v 'using' | wc -l
> >           8
> 
> Neil Conway wrote:
>     I'm not sure I agree with always adding `using` for all instances of a 
> given identifier in the codebase -- if a `.cpp` file only uses `std::string` 
> once, I think we need to require that they add `using std::string;`.
>     
>     A few places were using a fully-qualified identifier quite a few times, 
> which I agree makes sense to replace with `using` instead. This review fixes 
> the worst offenders: https://reviews.apache.org/r/58084/

> I'm not sure I agree with always adding using for all instances of a given 
> identifier in the codebase -- if a .cpp file only uses std::string once, I 
> think we need to require that they add using std::string;.

I assume you meant _do **not** need_ above?

I believe tieing the use of `using` decls to the number of users of that 
identifier in the file doesn't scale well and leads to inconsistencies; much 
simpler would be to _always_ consistently use `using` decls for certain symbols 
like e.g., `string` when they are introduced in implementation files, 
indepdently of the numeber of users.


- Benjamin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/58043/#review170549
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 29, 2017, 9:43 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/58043/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 29, 2017, 9:43 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Benjamin Bannier.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Cleanup usage of namespace-qualified identifiers.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/checks/checker.cpp 314354cc374b453ec12e25e3d4730a92697468cf 
>   src/tests/default_executor_tests.cpp 
> 6dadd8937eb6809bcb0aca55fab1cb7f17c3262f 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/58043/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>

Reply via email to