Thanks for the clarifications, Behdad! - Ed
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <beh...@behdad.org> wrote: > On 05/05/11 13:54, Ed wrote: >> Hi, Behdad, > > Hi Ed, > > >> As far as I am aware --please correct me if I am wrong-- the current >> HarfBuzz NG code relies entirely on C-style "structs" and seems to >> eschew implementing "true" C++ classes (i.e., those with >> compiler-enforced private members, explicit user-defined constructors >> and destructors, etc., (as opposed to "structs" which can be defined >> as a more limited subset of "classes" where all members are public)). > > That's not entirety true. We use as much as C++ as we can afford. > > For now, the rule is: no linking to libstdc++. And I'm religious about that > one. Other than that, I've been freely using private, protected, templates, > etc. Still avoiding virtual, constructors and destructors where they make > memory management harder. But where they ease it, by all means, I'm already > using them. > > >> So I assumed that HarfBuzz NG was not actually using C++ at all --and >> that perhaps the reason was to insure the possibility of compilation >> in some sort of embedded device environments where C++ compilers are >> not used ... or something like that. > > As I said, the rule's simple: no libstdc++ linkage. Other than that, if it > compiles with g++, and compiles with MSVC, it's good enough. > > >> But now you are saying that HarfBuzz is using C++. So, if that is the >> case, then why are you not using a code development model that takes >> full advantage of C++ and do precisely things like "use constructors >> to initialize static mutexes automatically", inter alia ? And why not >> take advantage of other aspects that C++ provides, like true private >> and protected members? > > I already do, in a lot of the code if you take a look. For some structs I > don't mark private members because we have static instances of those, and you > can't have a static initializer for a class with private/protected members. > > >> That's one question. >> >> But a related valid question is: would you accept contributions to the >> code base that do utilize true C++ classes featuring things like >> constructors, destructors, protected and private members, despite the >> fact that such contributions would differ in coding style from what >> you are currently creating? > > You're right that my coding style in HarfBuzz is indeed that of a C > programmer, freely using C++ features when more convenient. I don't > categorically reject other code styles, though I really like tight code, and > will say so if I see otherwise. > > Cheers, > behdad > >> Best - Ed > _______________________________________________ HarfBuzz mailing list HarfBuzz@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
