Re: a bit of rearranging?

[Nathan Myers <ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org>]

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 10:55:02PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Nathan Myers <ncm-nospam@cantrip.org> writes:
> 
> | If every time you touched a class definition, you re-arranged it to
> | match as closely as possible the ordering
> | 
> |   typedefs
> |   public constructors and destructor
> |   public member functions
> | 
> |   protected constructors
> |   protected member functions
> |   overriding virtuals
> | 
> |   friend declarations.
> |   private member functions
> |   private member data
> | 
> | you would be improving the library each time.
> 
> I second this scheme.  Actually, I think every inline member functions
> (perhaps with very few exceptions) should be defined out-of-class.

I used to agree, but after some more experience my coding standard 
now dictates that only one-line inlines may appear in class bodies
(and no cheating by piling up statements on a line!).  

Making inlines less temptingly convenient to write is a Good Thing, 
but a blanket prohibition risks rebellion.  People can live with 
a one-line restriction.  In fact, it makes headers more readable 
than the more-restrictive alternative, because almost all the
inlines are self-documenting.  

I wonder if it wouldn't be a Good Thing to make doxygen slurp up
and display the one-line inlines.

Nathan Myers
ncm at cantrip dot org