On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Mark Mitchell <m...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > >> There are good C++ coding standards out there, and I would be reluctant >> to encourage a NIH-driven design as opposed to adapting existing ones >> that have been given lot of considerations: >> >> http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq2.html#coding-standard >> http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/JSF-AV-rules.pdf >> >> certainly there are elements there that are use for us to consider. > > I've already asked if someone wants to volunteer to put together coding > standards. I'm happy for that to end up being some set of coding > standards that already exist, whether Bjarne's, Google's, or whatever. > I don't have any inherent desire to invent a completely fresh set of > standards.
And I said I'm willing to help with that, as long as we don't have to rehash old debates as those we had end of '90s when EC++ popped up. > > On the other hand, as Bjarne says, the right subset is dependent on > context. We're not in a safety-critical environment, we have a large > existing C codebase, and we have a developer team made up of experienced > C programmers, not all of whom are used to programming in C++. So, we > need to take those factors into account. Definitely. That document is interesting in that it offers views and rationale about some of the restrictions being put forward. For example, I would not discount easily sections 4.10, 4.11, 4.12. -- Gaby
