This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ coding conventions: namespaces, references and getters (was Re: [PATCH 2/2] Introduce beginnings of a pipeline class.)
- From: Oleg Endo <oleg dot endo at t-online dot de>
- To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Martin Jambor <mjambor at suse dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 21:02:53 +0200
- Subject: Re: C++ coding conventions: namespaces, references and getters (was Re: [PATCH 2/2] Introduce beginnings of a pipeline class.)
- References: <1374678544-8678-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <1374678544-8678-3-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <20130725130845 dot GB12455 at virgil dot suse> <1375122002 dot 23374 dot 86 dot camel at surprise>
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 14:20 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > The same here and at a few other places. It may be just me not being
> > used to references... nevertheless, if someone really wants to use
> > them like this, at least make them const and you will save a night of
> > frantic debugging to someone, probably to yourself. But I strongly
> > prefer pointers... it's hard to describe how strongly I prefer them.
> OK. How do others feel? As I said above, I like the above idiom,
> since it puts the assertion of non-NULLness in a single place.
I'm voting for references. References can be seen as yet another
software structuring tool that instantly communicate some properties
such as you mentioned above. In addition to that it's also a hint of
ownership, i.e. if I get an object& from somewhere I know that I better
not even think about whether to delete it or not.