-0.5 if keeping it as a warning.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 1:23 AM kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that active C++ developers should be the ones making these
> choices. The downside to that is that many of these people are already
> pretty busy. To make the best
I agree that active C++ developers should be the ones making these
choices. The downside to that is that many of these people are already
pretty busy. To make the best use possible of their time it would probably
make sense to create a concise doc with proposed style changes and ETAs
rather than
+1
@Chris: do you have data on the performance difference? As far as I know
there's a "rewrite rule" like the one between lambdas and C++ functors, so
performance should be very well defined, but maybe there's something that
you are point out that we are missing.
Having a consistent and concise c
unless you don’t think that’s reasonable...
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:59 AM Chris Olivier wrote:
> If you get three +1’s from the top 6 contributors of C++ code (by volume),
> I’ll switch to -0, since the ones committing the most C++ code will be the
> most impacted and probably it should be the
If you get three +1’s from the top 6 contributors of C++ code (by volume),
I’ll switch to -0, since the ones committing the most C++ code will be the
most impacted and probably it should be their decision, imho.
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 12:28 AM kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrot
About 60 but they're all addressed In the ref PR.
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018, 6:12 AM Chris Olivier wrote:
> How many errors exist in the code base right now if it were to be enabled?
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:03 PM Naveen Swamy wrote:
>
> > Thanks Kellen & Anton, for your detailed explanation an
How many errors exist in the code base right now if it were to be enabled?
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:03 PM Naveen Swamy wrote:
> Thanks Kellen & Anton, for your detailed explanation and links to
> advantages, appreciate it.
> changing my vote to *-0*, I suggest to show as warnings.
>
> On Sat, S
Thanks Kellen & Anton, for your detailed explanation and links to
advantages, appreciate it.
changing my vote to *-0*, I suggest to show as warnings.
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:06 PM Anton Chernov wrote:
> And if you want a more authoritative opinion on that check out what the C++
> core guidelin
And if you want a more authoritative opinion on that check out what the C++
core guidelines are saying [1]:
> ES.71: Prefer a range-for-statement to a for-statement when there is a
choice
> Reason
> Readability. Error prevention. Efficiency.
Best regards
Anton
[1]
https://github.com/isocpp/CppCo
+1
Maybe it's not necessary to enforce usage of range-based for, but I would
highly encourage to to it due to already named advantages. If code would be
introduced using the old-style there could be a comment suggesting the new
way. But why do the manual work and not leave that to the automated to
It's more readable because it's concise and it's consistent for many types
you're looping over (i.e. primitive arrays, stl iterators, etc all work the
same way). It's also useful because it's consistent with other programming
languages, making C++ codebases much easier to read for novice and
inter
Kellen,
Could you please explain why you think range loops are better and how it
improves readability? this is a relatively new feature, many of them are
used to the old syntax, shouldn't we leave it for the developers to choose
the one that best suits the need and their familiarity.
In general I
ok then, my vote is still -1, however, because it’s just adding needless
friction for developers imho.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 7:42 AM kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Range loops aren’t always the most performant way" Do you have an example
> where there's a perf differ
+1
Using range-based for-loop whenever possible improves code readability and
makes code less prone to human error.
I did some preliminary research on Google and did not find any complaint
about its performance drawback. Here is one piece from StackOverflow for
reference:
https://stackoverflow.co
"Range loops aren’t always the most performant way" Do you have an example
where there's a perf difference?
"In addition, sometimes you want the index. Or maybe you want to iterate
backwards, or not start from the first, etc. Maybe you want the iterator
because you remove it from the list at the b
-1
Range loops aren’t always the most performant way. In addition, sometimes
you want the index. Or maybe you want to iterate backwards, or not start
from the first, etc. Maybe you want the iterator because you remove it from
the list at the bottom of the loop Seems like a rule for the sake of
Hello MXNet devs,
I'd like to discuss uniformly adopting C++11 range loops in the MXNet
project. The benefits I see are:
* Improved C++ readability (examples below).
* Consistency with other languages. The range-loops are quite similar to
loops almost all other programming languages. Given w
17 matches
Mail list logo
