If you were allowed to add another coding guideline to the 101 guidelines of the "C++ coding standards" (Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu), which would you add?
From stackoverflow
-
I vote for: "avoid considering goto, naming notation and indentation as being the subjects of coding rules"
Richard Corden : This is very similar to "don't sweat the small stuff". -
Write for a year later.
-
Rule 102: Any change to expected functionality should result in a regression test that fails.
JesperE : I agree. But it's not really a C++-rule.Richard Corden : Several of the existing 101 rules are not C++ specific. -
"Use RAII judiciously"
paercebal : Could you elaborate? Has RAII hidden dangers that escaped our notice?DarenW : Less experienced coders have no idea of what's "judicious" and more experienced one may have professional differences of opinion, so this falls a bit short of a useful guideline. A good guideline would define what's judicious. -
Rule 102: read Google C++ Style Guide
Edit:
and there is this similar thread:
-
Prefer constructors to init()/setup() functions.
Why manipulating an object that may be in an unusable state? Isn't it better to not have it at all ?
0 comments:
Post a Comment