>
> Hi Lukáš,
>
>
> In the specific case of the streaming agent, I believe it matters
> for instant productivity that the code follow a style that does not
> require additional thinking on Frediano’s part. So if Frediano likes
> it, it’s fine by me, otherwise don’t care.
>
> Also, rather than invent a style, I’d rather adopt an standard coding
> style, e.g. Google’s. And then use clang-format to enforce all the
> machine-enforceable parts of it.
>
>
> Regards,
> Christophe
>
> PS: Some comments on your suggestions anyway…
>
> > On 29 Jan 2018, at 15:19, Lukáš Hrázký <lhrazky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > I'd like to discuss a few things about the coding style for C++ in
> > Spice (looking at the streaming agent atm).
> >
> > Trying to keep this short and concise.
> >
> >
> > 1. Method names
> > Currently the method names are in CamelCase throughout the streaming
> > agent. Methods are basically functions attached to a class, I suggest
> > we use snake_case to be consistent with the function names.
> >
> > It's rather confusing when you see a call like SomeObject(), which
> > looks like a constructor, but you actually find out it's a method call
> > from another method of the same class.
>
> Naming a method with a name that can also be a class is always
> ambiguous, CamelCase or not. Is color() a method or an ctor?
> So DeCamelCaseIfication not a solution to that problem.
>
> BTW, CamelCase is so frequent in C++ that it often can be used to identify
> code as being C++ as opposed to plain C. To wit: LLVM, WebKit, Qt, etc.
>
> >
> >
> > ;2. Namespace names
> > Although not standard (you may have different experience), usually
> > namespaces are lowercase in C++.
>
> By that token, so do classes (in all of the standard library).
> But it’s generally not true outside of the standard library.
>
> > Also, they are hierarchical, I suggest
> > we use that and in streaming agent we change the namespace like so:
> >
> > SpiceStreamingAgent -> spice::streamingagent
> >
> > or (imho better):
> > SpiceStreamingAgent -> spice::streaming_agent
> >
> > And stick to this scheme, i.e. lowercase and toplevel namespace
> > 'spice', inside it a namespace of the component.
>
> Not against the idea, but two levels of namespace for
> 2000 LOCs seems a tad bit overkill…
>
Always better to plan big :-)
I don't think is overkilling.
>
> >
> >
> > 3. Namespace coding style
> >
> > a) Let's not use `using namespace ...` ever even in .cpp files (see
> > i.e. [1]). In streaming agent we have at the beginning of every .cpp:
> >
> > using namespace std;
> > using namespace SpiceStreamingAgent;
>
> Again, 2000 lines of code, unlikely to grow much.
> Google’s rule applies to their mega-projects, but for the agent,
> I think that “using namespace” makes the code leaner.
>
I think here the distinction is usage and implementation.
1) implementation. If you want to implement a class my_namespace::MyClass you
probably want to use:
#include "my_class_header.hpp"
namespace my_namespace {
MyClass::MyClass(...)
{
...
}
...
}
2) usage. Here you want to use the class my_namespace::MyClass, you probably
want:
#include "my_class_header.hpp"
using namespace my_namespace;
...
auto *my_obj = new MyClass(...);
I think does it make sense. About the using in 2) depends on how much the code
is using the namespace or personal preference.
> >
> > For namespace std, "std::" is not a long prefix, clearly expresses the
> > identifier is from the standard library and AFAIK most C++ projects use
> > it this way.
> >
> > For namespace SpiceStreamingAgent, I didn't even know it worked for
> > definition of symbols in the namespace. First time I see it, it is very
> > unusual. see b).
> >
> > b) Let's keep the following coding style for namespaces, i.e. for
> > streaming agent:
> >
> > namespace spice {
> > namespace streaming_agent {
> >
> > THE_CODE
> >
> > }} // namespace spice::streaming_agent
>
> Not too enthusiastic about }}
>
weird too, but with comment is more understandable (I would say
required).
> >
> >
> > We should add the guidelines to the website next to the C coding style,
> > but I have no intention to be exhaustive (see [1] for how long it can
> > be), let's add important cases as they come up and just use common
> > sense, keep the style of the local code and codereview to keep things
> > in check?
>
> Let’s first share our preference on existing styles to see if we agree on
> anything…
> As for me, I have a slight preference for the LLVM coding style, but I made
> modifications in my own clang-format files.
>
The problem here is that we already have plenty of other code, not clear
if/how we should be coherent with it (considering also that's almost C but
considering that and the fact that C++ is really C friendly I can think
that we could include and use lot of existing C code).
>
> Regards
> Christophe
>
>
> >
> > Lukas
> >
> >
> > [1] https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Namespaces
Frediano
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel