[Development] Qt Coding style and C++11

[André Somers]

Op 18/09/2017 om 09:02 schreef 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 don't get this. Wouldn't doing this do as much cleanup as is
reasonably possible across the whole code base? How do you end up with a
mixture then?

>
>>
>> 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.
Qt already requires C++11. So no, we do not still want to target
platforms that don't support C++11.
>
> 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.
It is less error-phrone to initialize at the place of declaration,
instead of in a different file. This gets worse if you have multiple
constructors. So, naturally, we end up with uninitialized member
variables, with all the mahem that may cause.

André