On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 10:39:37AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:00 PM Gerald Squelart <gsquel...@mozilla.com> > wrote: > > > Thank you all for some very interesting discussions so far. > > > > Even if we don't take blanket steps to avoid unsigned types in > > non-bitfield/modulo cases (as suggested by our newly-adopted Google style), > > at least hopefully we're now aware of their subtleties, and we can be more > > careful and deliberate in our choice of integer types in our respective > > domains. > > > > Coming back to my original questions, I think the first part has not been > > categorically answered yet: > > > > Do we have style rules (or folklore) against naked `int`s/`unsigned`s, in > > favor of explicitly-sized `(u)intXX_t` everywhere? > > > > For new code, the style guide for this question can be found here: > https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Integer_Types. For > existing code, consistency with surrounding code should take precedence for > now. I hope this answers your question.
I thought we only adopted the Google style guide for formatting. Does everything from the guide apply now? Or only parts of it? If the latter, which parts? I'm surprised because I don't remember having seen a mail about this, and surely, I should have noticed something that'd be saying that class member variables names would stop beginning with m, and would instead finish with an underscore and be all lowercase. Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
