On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Joris Van Remoortere <[email protected]> wrote:
> We had an internal discussion about this. White-listing constexpr is fine > by us. > I think technically the google style guide allows c++11 features that are > not explicitly disallowed, but it doesn't hurt to add it to the style guide > :-) > I actually think that *adding* it to the guide does hurt :) (on the other hand, I'm absolutely fine with constexpr) I really like Google's approach of "if it's not explicitly forbidden, it's allowed" as it helps people from having to double-guess whether X is allowed or not. my twocent, anyway > > Joris > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Paul Brett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Despite best efforts to avoid non-POD static variables, we appear to > still > > have over 80 instances (see MESOS-2780). We can, of course, use const > > inline functions to address these but this will change each constant > > reference at the calling site to a constant function reference. > > > > A more natural approach provided by C++11 is to use constexpr. I have > > submitted for review (https://reviews.apache.org/r/34782/) an example to > > address the TC handle. > > > > What are the views on whitelisting constexpr? > > > > -- Paul Brett > > >
