[glideplan_swproj] Re: Coding practices
- From: Kuba Marek <blue.cube@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: glideplan_swproj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:17:38 +0100
http://doc.qt.nokia.com/4.7-snapshot/implicit-sharing.html :-)
> I'm looking at Qt funtions style.
> They use value passing for returning even QString.
> We can do it similar way - it is comfortable.
> But for bigger objects, we should use pointers/references.
>
> T.
>
> > ------------ Původní zpráva ------------
> > Od: Tomáš Zámečník <pulcik@xxxxxxxx>
> > Předmět: [glideplan_swproj] Re: [glideplan_swproj] Coding practices
> > Datum: 16.1.2012 19:05:39
> > ----------------------------------------
> > It's not a signal fot rewriting all.
> > ...If it is necessary, we should do it with some refactoring.
> >
> > T.
> >
> > > ------------ Původní zpráva ------------
> > > Od: Tomáš Zámečník <pulcik@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Předmět: [glideplan_swproj] Coding practices
> > > Datum: 16.1.2012 19:03:00
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > > Good evening to all,
> > > I think that (beside style checker validation) we should keep
> > > some coding practices.
> > >
> > > Following comes in my mind:
> > >
> > > * For passing parameters (except elemtary types) should be used
> > > reference instead of value.
> > > e.g.: void setName(const QString &name) instead of: void
> > > setName(QString
> > name)
> > >
> > > * Similarly big structers shouldn't be returned as a value (use
> > > out parameter instead)
> > > e.g.: void getList(List *numbers) instead of: List getList()
> > > ...the best version is in my opinion: void getList(List
> > > &numbers), but our style-checker doesn't allow it.
> > > (There is bug in style checker - it doesn't allow non-const
> > > reference for
> > first
> > > param, but allows for others)
> > >
> > > * Comments for methods should be in header file instead of cpp.
> > > Interface is then specified by commented method headers
> > > (separated from implementation)
> > > Cpp is sometimes inaccesible (when using precompiled
> > > libraries) ...I know,
> > it's
> > > not our case,
> > > but we should use one style.
> > >
> > > T.
> > >
> > > To visit archive or unsubscribe, follow:
> > > //www.freelists.org/list/glideplan_swproj
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > To visit archive or unsubscribe, follow:
> > //www.freelists.org/list/glideplan_swproj
> >
> >
> >
>
> To visit archive or unsubscribe, follow:
> //www.freelists.org/list/glideplan_swproj
Other related posts:
