[Development] Qt Coding style and C++11

[Lorn Potter]

> On 15 Sep 2017, at 6:47 pm, Kevin Funk <kevin.funk at kdab.com> wrote:
> 
> (2) And maybe your request:
> - Use C++11 member initialization where possible
>  (IOW: Run clang-tidy cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init checker
>  on code base and apply all fixes)

But then files will begin to have a mixture of the two conventions, which is not necessarily a good thing. Wide scale changing of this is probably not a good idea.

> 
> 
> I personally think that (1) would be useful (despite it costing us a lot of 
> code churn when doing the transition) because it's much easier to read 
> `nullptr` than `Q_NULLPTR`, or `override` instead of `Q_DECL_OVERRIDE` in 
> code. Other opinions may vary, but it's definitely more comfortable for 
> newcomers to read familiar C++ keywords than custom macros.
> 
> I'd be willing to provide the patches for (1) and maybe even (2) if there's a 
> clear sentiment towards the change(s).
> 
>> The section "Conventions for C++11 usage" in [1] states:
>> 
>>  "Note: This section is not an accepted convention yet.
>>   This section serves as baseline for further discussions."
>> 
>> I'd like to push this discussion, because if code is converted to a new
>> base, it should be clear to everyone HOW to do so.
> 
> For new code the this should be a no-brainer, IMO. So +1 from my side.


It really depends on the code, and where it is. Not all platforms/systems will support c++11 I suppose, and we might want to still target these. I am not up to date with all the platforms/targets, etc.

But for new plugins that target a known platform that supports c++11, they can most likely use new conventions.

Unless someone can come up with technical reasons the new c++11 member initialization is better than what is there now, I’d rather keep it the same as it is now.


-
Lorn Potter
Developer, Maintainer QtSensors/QtSystemInfo