Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:21:05 AM UTC+3, gsqu...@mozilla.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:35:59 AM UTC+10, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > On 6/5/18 3:10 PM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > > > I personally would prefer one space at each side when using braces: > > > > > >  , mFoo { 0

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:22:06 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 4/13/18 9:37 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: >> Would people agree to use: >> >>  , mIsRootDefined { false } >> >> Instead of: >> >>  , mIsRootDefined{ false } > > So my take is that we should not use braced initializer syntax in >

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 5:35:59 AM UTC+10, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 6/5/18 3:10 PM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > > I personally would prefer one space at each side when using braces: > > > >  , mFoo { 0 } > > I think the reason people tend to think of this as not wanting spaces is >

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On 6/5/18 3:10 PM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: I personally would prefer one space at each side when using braces:  , mFoo { 0 } I think the reason people tend to think of this as not wanting spaces is that they are thinking of it as a constructor call. The parentheses syntax for

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On 06/05/2018 06:48 PM, Eric Rahm wrote: Reading back through I think the consensus, at least for initializer lists was: 1. Prefer parenthesis, ie: , mBool(true) 2. If using braces, maintain the same spacing you would use with parenthesis, ie: , mStructWithoutCtor{42} 1.

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

Reading back through I think the consensus, at least for initializer lists was: 1. Prefer parenthesis, ie: , mBool(true) 2. If using braces, maintain the same spacing you would use with parenthesis, ie: , mStructWithoutCtor{42} 1. was pragmatic as this is what we already do, 2.

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

> On 5 Jun 2018, at 12:54 pm, bposteln...@mozilla.com wrote: > > I would like to resurrect this thread since it would help us a lot for bug > 1453795 to come up to a consensus on when to use bracelets and when to use > parenthesis. Also I must point out a thing here, that was also mentioned

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

I would like to resurrect this thread since it would help us a lot for bug 1453795 to come up to a consensus on when to use bracelets and when to use parenthesis. Also I must point out a thing here, that was also mentioned here earlier, that there are situations where we cannot use parenthesis.

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: >> If we are going to have brace-initialization intermixed with >> list-initialization (i.e. parentheses) in our codebase, I think we >> should prefer no space prior to the brace, for consistency. > > Hmm, consistency

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > I'd be ok with that I guess, though it's more common each time? Also, is > there any case where you could use braces but not parenthesis? (I'm not a > C++ expert in this regard). I think there are. In particular if

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On 4/13/18 4:49 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: Those changes I assume were generated with clang-format / clang-format-diff using the "Mozilla" coding style, so I'd rather ask people to agree in whether we prefer that style

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On 13/04/2018 16:49, Nathan Froyd wrote: > I lean towards the former here. I think the former is more common in > the code I've seen, but apparently the latter is "preferred C++" or > something? Yes, let's have a solid rationale if we're doing sweeping changes of this sort. Blindly following the

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > Those changes I assume were generated with clang-format / clang-format-diff > using the "Mozilla" coding style, so I'd rather ask people to agree in > whether we prefer that style or other in order to change that if

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On 4/13/18 9:40 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote: I don't have an opinion on the style change itself, but I'm a very strong +1 on just picking one and making sure clang-format enforces it. We need to fix clang-format to not produce output like

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

On 4/13/18 9:37 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: Would people agree to use:  , mIsRootDefined { false } Instead of:  , mIsRootDefined{ false } So my take is that we should not use braced initializer syntax in constructor initializer lists. The reason for that is that it makes it much

Re: Coding style: brace initialization syntax

I don't have an opinion on the style change itself, but I'm a very strong +1 on just picking one and making sure clang-format enforces it. Alex On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > Sorry, I know, coding style thread... But it's Friday and this is

Coding style: brace initialization syntax

Sorry, I know, coding style thread... But it's Friday and this is somewhat related to the previous thread. Bug 525063 added a lot of lines like: explicit TTextAttr(bool aGetRootValue) : mGetRootValue(aGetRootValue) , mIsDefined{ false } , mIsRootDefined{ false } {