On 9/3/23 10:14, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
On 08.03.23 15:30, Ahmad Samir wrote:So, named casts (static_cast) are better in such cases, as searching for them in source code is much easier than searching for: - int(foo) - (int)foo - (int)(foo)In which situation would you want to search for all casts in a piece of source code? Without the use of a semantic grep tool?
The tool (in this case compiling with -Wshorten-64-to-32, then checking with clangd or the build log ...etc) would warn about implicit casts, but not explicit ones? now if there is a named cast, then I can search for that much easier than I would for the C-style cast (int)foo, or int(foo).
(I haven't checked clang-tidy, but I am guessing it won't be that much different than clangd).
I wouldn't like the extra noise of a static_cast when a constructor call would suffice. Obviously, C-style casts should be avoided (in headers, IIRC, they're caught by headerscheck).
Good luck with avoiding C-style casts in a huge codebase, e.g. qtbase, there is code that's been there since the 90's, and any attempt to "fix" C-style casts in the whole codebase would be seen as "churn".
Thanks, Marc
Thanks, Ahmad Samir
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
