From: jeff_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-06-24 13:28:35
> >
> > I am certainly coming to that conclusion. When we established a coding
> > standard at my job recently, we chose the leading-underscore convention,
> but
> > in light of recent boost messages I am strongly advising a switch to "m_".
> >
> > BTW, I am beginning to wonder if it's worth having a "suggested coding
> > standards" document. I have put considerable effort into the
> > boost-compatible coding standards we're using at work. Clearly it would be
> > overkill for boost to mandate some of the nitpicky things in our standard,
> > but it sometimes helps to have some guidelines when you're trying to
> decide
> > whether to write something one way or another.
> >
> > -Dave
> >
>
> I think a suggesting coding standards document is a great idea. Obviously,
> trying to direct a group like this is like herding cats, but if there is a
> suggested
> style it would at least allow people that *want* to write code that is
> stylistically
> compatible to do so.
>
I believe that an accepted set of coding guidelines would be a huge 'boost' to
development teams around the globe. This comes up on literally every project,
and most companies don't want to bother so they end up saying something like:
use Hungarian notation (gagging heard in background) and follow the guidelines
in Effective C++ (cheers from the audience). Ideally, these guidelines would
be written like Scott's books: small concrete sections with short titles and
deep explanations of why something is a guideline (and hence when it can be
violated). They should be highly modular so that projects can make
customizations and removals.
Jeff