@Marco: If you think it hurts to add it to the white-list, then we need to have a discussion about wiping the entire white-list.
I think having a white-list, and then not adding things makes it even more confusing. On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Marco Massenzio <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > >
