From bc41bd6e9f96940a146e918f939e5c47131428c7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sergey Zubkov Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:41:56 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] dropping NVI from proto-rules due to no consensus on #768 --- CppCoreGuidelines.md | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/CppCoreGuidelines.md b/CppCoreGuidelines.md index 1f561d6..f4f4612 100644 --- a/CppCoreGuidelines.md +++ b/CppCoreGuidelines.md @@ -19136,7 +19136,6 @@ Alternatively, we will decide that no change is needed and delete the entry. * Never pass a pointer down the call stack * falling through a function bottom * Should there be guidelines to choose between polymorphisms? YES. classic (virtual functions, reference semantics) vs. Sean Parent style (value semantics, type-erased, kind of like `std::function`) vs. CRTP/static? YES Perhaps even vs. tag dispatch? -* Speaking of virtual functions, should non-virtual interface be promoted? YES. (public non-virtual `foo()` calling private/protected `do_foo()`)? Not a new thing, seeing as locales/streams use it, but it seems to be under-emphasized. * should virtual calls be banned from ctors/dtors in your guidelines? YES. A lot of people ban them, even though I think it's a big strength of C++ that they are ??? -preserving (D disappointed me so much when it went the Java way). WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE? * Speaking of lambdas, what would weigh in on the decision between lambdas and (local?) classes in algorithm calls and other callback scenarios? * And speaking of `std::bind`, Stephen T. Lavavej criticizes it so much I'm starting to wonder if it is indeed going to fade away in future. Should lambdas be recommended instead?