Subject: Re: [boost] Warning policy? local variable hides (i.e. shadows) global variable
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-18 13:10:39
On Sunday 18 January 2015 17:52:07 Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Andrey Semashev
>
> <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Friday 16 January 2015 12:19:30 Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> >>
> >> Next step would be to have warnings or maybe a per-class attribute or
> >> modifier to make this required.
> >
> > I would really hate that, sorry.
>
> Why?
The second part of my answer expanded on that, I think.
> >> Perhaps @@ for non-local stuff?
> >> It might look silly at first but I think it's better than relying on
> >> coding styles and prefixes.
> >
> > Right, let's add some more mangling to the already complicated C++ syntax.
> >
> > I think C++ name lookup rules are very sane and relying on them is the
> > right thing to do. Just pick the right names and you'll be fine. In fact,
> > the proper names will serve as documentation. Warnings about the code
> > that does exactly what is intended is what irritates me in compilers. I
> > often have to cripple the code just to make them happy and not myself.
> > That's why I typically disable such warnings and not "fix" the code.
> >
> > There will always be room for stupid mistakes like "=" instead of "==" in
> > conditions or a ";" right after the "for" operator or @ instead of @@ in
> > your suggested syntax or whatever else. It doesn't mean that the language
> > is broken. It means you have to pay attention.
>
> Sure, but using a prefix or suffix for member variables is a common
> practice. Do you not do it?
Yes, although not universally. There are cases when no prefixes are needed.