Updating our coding conventions and coding style for C++11

[David Edmundson]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, 22:46 Kai Uwe Broulik, <kde at privat.broulik.de> wrote:

>
> > Well, the * is completely redundant in those cases, so it doesn't bring
> anything.
> > I'd be tempted to say, let's not require it.
> > But then it raises the question of consistency (without a guideline,
> we'll have some places with * and some places without *).
>
> It provides useful visual information.
>


> auto foo = bar();
> auto baz = &bla;
>

Neither of those examples abide by the proposed Qt/Vlad rules, which I
think would render your issue moot.

I don't think I really understand your potential issue anyway, if you tried
to use baz form and it wasn't the type I expected it just wouldn't compile?

This is somewhat different to the case where have you have overloaded & and
non& operators, such as [] where I do I understand why it's useful.

I'll continue mandating that in code I maintain, even if it's not
> official policy.
>

The context of this original email being sent was that I got extremely
frustrated with per-project seemingly random rules.
I can happily follow a global policy even if I don't agree with it, but we
need to define things. Otherwise, we'll end up in this situation again.

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20200117/7ff0f446/attachment.html>