StarMirror/CppCoreGuidelines
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines.git synced 2024-03-22 13:30:58 +08:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #175 from tkruse/fix-inconsistent-code-indent

Browse Source 
fix mixup of indentation strategies inside same codeblocks
This commit is contained in:
Gabriel Dos Reis 2015-09-27 11:52:42 -07:00
commit 5a4c7aaa7f
1 changed files with 65 additions and 64 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

129
CppCoreGuidelines.md
View File

@ -1899,9 +1899,10 @@ Passing a shared smart pointer (e.g., `std::shared_ptr`) implies a run-time cost
**Example**:
template<class T>
template<class T>
auto square(T t) { return t*t; }
**Note**: `constexpr` functions are pure.
**Enforcement**: not possible.
@ -2204,7 +2205,7 @@ If the writer of `g()` makes an assumption about the size of `buffer` a bad logi
**Example**:
template <class F, class... Args>
template <class F, class... Args>
inline auto invoke(F&& f, Args&&... args) {
return forward<F>(f)(forward<Args>(args)...);
}
@ -2314,14 +2315,14 @@ And yes, C++ does have multiple return values, by convention of using a `tuple`,
**Example**:
int f( const string& input, /*output only*/ string& output_data ) { // BAD: output-only parameter documented in a comment
// ...
output_data = something();
return status;
}
// ...
output_data = something();
return status;
}
tuple<int, string> f( const string& input ) { // GOOD: self-documenting
// ...
return make_tuple(something(), status);
// ...
return make_tuple(something(), status);
}
In fact, C++98's standard library already used this convenient feature, because a `pair` is like a two-element `tuple`.
@ -4456,10 +4457,10 @@ Note that calling a specific explicitly qualified function is not a virtual call
**Example; good**:
class Foo {
// ...
// ...
public:
void swap(Foo& rhs) noexcept
{
{
m1.swap(rhs.m1);
std::swap(m2, rhs.m2);
}
@ -4471,9 +4472,9 @@ Note that calling a specific explicitly qualified function is not a virtual call
Providing a nonmember `swap` function in the same namespace as your type for callers' convenience.
void swap(Foo& a, Foo& b)
{
a.swap(b);
}
{
a.swap(b);
}
**Enforcement**:
* (Simple) A class without virtual functions should have a `swap` member function declared.
@ -5528,7 +5529,7 @@ Here, we ignore such cases.
**Example, bad**: Consider
void send( X* x, cstring_view destination ) {
void send( X* x, cstring_view destination ) {
auto port = OpenPort(destination);
my_mutex.lock();
// ...
@ -5537,20 +5538,20 @@ Here, we ignore such cases.
my_mutex.unlock();
ClosePort(port);
delete x;
}
}
In this code, you have to remember to `unlock`, `ClosePort`, and `delete` on all paths, and do each exactly once.
Further, if any of the code marked `...` throws an exception, then `x` is leaked and `my_mutex` remains locked.
**Example**: Consider
void send( unique_ptr<X> x, cstring_view destination ) { // x owns the X
void send( unique_ptr<X> x, cstring_view destination ) { // x owns the X
Port port{destination}; // port owns the PortHandle
lock_guard<mutex> guard{my_mutex}; // guard owns the lock
// ...
Send(port, x);
// ...
} // automatically unlocks my_mutex and deletes the pointer in x
} // automatically unlocks my_mutex and deletes the pointer in x
Now all resource cleanup is automatic, performed once on all paths whether or not there is an exception. As a bonus, the function now advertises that it takes over ownership of the pointer.
@ -6085,7 +6086,7 @@ Any type (including primary template or specialization) that overloads unary `*`
}
// use Microsoft's CComPtr
#include <atlbase.h>
#include <atlbase.h>
void f(CComPtr<widget> p) { // error under rule 'sharedptrparam'
p->foo();
}
@ -6220,29 +6221,29 @@ You need to be sure that smart pointer cannot be inadvertently be reset or reass
shared_ptr<widget> g_p = ...;
void f( widget& w ) {
g();
use(w); // A
g();
use(w); // A
}
void g() {
g_p = ... ; // oops, if this was the last shared_ptr to that widget, destroys the widget
}
g_p = ... ; // oops, if this was the last shared_ptr to that widget, destroys the widget
}
The following should not pass code review:
void my_code() {
f( *g_p ); // BAD: passing pointer or reference obtained from a nonlocal smart pointer
// that could be inadvertently reset somewhere inside f or it callees
g_p->func(); // BAD: same reason, just passing it as a "this" pointer
}
f( *g_p ); // BAD: passing pointer or reference obtained from a nonlocal smart pointer
// that could be inadvertently reset somewhere inside f or it callees
g_p->func(); // BAD: same reason, just passing it as a "this" pointer
}
The fix is simple -- take a local copy of the pointer to "keep a ref count" for your call tree:
void my_code() {
auto pin = g_p; // cheap: 1 increment covers this entire function and all the call trees below us
f( *pin ); // GOOD: passing pointer or reference obtained from a local unaliased smart pointer
pin->func(); // GOOD: same reason
}
auto pin = g_p; // cheap: 1 increment covers this entire function and all the call trees below us
f( *pin ); // GOOD: passing pointer or reference obtained from a local unaliased smart pointer
pin->func(); // GOOD: same reason
}
**Enforcement**:
@ -6543,11 +6544,11 @@ Here, there is a chance that the reader knows what `trim_tail` means and that th
**Example, bad**: Argument names of large functions are de facto non-local and should be meaningful:
void complicated_algorithm(vector<Record>&vr, const vector<int>& vi, map<string, int>& out)
// read from events in vr (marking used Records) for the indices in vi placing (name, index) pairs into out
{
// ... 500 lines of code using vr, vi, and out ...
}
void complicated_algorithm(vector<Record>&vr, const vector<int>& vi, map<string, int>& out)
// read from events in vr (marking used Records) for the indices in vi placing (name, index) pairs into out
{
// ... 500 lines of code using vr, vi, and out ...
}
We recommend keeping functions short, but that rule isn't universally adhered to and naming should reflect that.
@ -6653,7 +6654,7 @@ In each case, we save writing a longish, hard-to-remember type that the compiler
**Example**:
template<class T>
auto Container<T>::first() -> Iterator; // Container<T>::Iterator
auto Container<T>::first() -> Iterator; // Container<T>::Iterator
**Exception**: Avoid `auto` for initializer lists and in cases where you know exactly which type you want and where an initializer might require conversion.
@ -11147,7 +11148,7 @@ Dynamic accesses into arrays are difficult for both tools and humans to validate
// ALTERNATIVE A: Use an array_view
// A1: Change parameter type to use array_view
// A1: Change parameter type to use array_view
void f(array_view<int, 10> a, int pos)
{
a[pos/2] = 1; // OK
@ -11184,7 +11185,7 @@ Dynamic accesses into arrays are difficult for both tools and humans to validate
void f()
{
int arr[COUNT];
array_view<int> av = arr;
array_view<int> av = arr;
for (int i = 0; i < COUNT; ++i)
av[i] = i;
}
@ -11381,19 +11382,19 @@ Use `not_null<zstring>` for C-style strings that cannot be `nullptr`. ??? Do we
<a name="SS-ownership"></a>
## GSL.owner: Ownership pointers
* `unique_ptr<T>` // unique ownership: `std::unique_ptr<T>`
* `shared_ptr<T>` // shared ownership: `std::shared_ptr<T>` (a counted pointer)
* `stack_array<T>` // A stack-allocated array. The number of elements are determined at construction and fixed thereafter. The elements are mutable unless `T` is a `const` type.
* `dyn_array<T>` // ??? needed ??? A heap-allocated array. The number of elements are determined at construction and fixed thereafter.
* `unique_ptr<T>` // unique ownership: `std::unique_ptr<T>`
* `shared_ptr<T>` // shared ownership: `std::shared_ptr<T>` (a counted pointer)
* `stack_array<T>` // A stack-allocated array. The number of elements are determined at construction and fixed thereafter. The elements are mutable unless `T` is a `const` type.
* `dyn_array<T>` // ??? needed ??? A heap-allocated array. The number of elements are determined at construction and fixed thereafter.
The elements are mutable unless `T` is a `const` type. Basically an `array_view` that allocates and owns its elements.
<a name="SS-assertions"></a>
## GSL.assert: Assertions
* `Expects` // precondition assertion. Currently placed in function bodies. Later, should be moved to declarations.
// `Expects(p)` terminates the program unless `p==true`
// ??? `Expect` in under control of some options (enforcement, error message, alternatives to terminate)
* `Ensures` // postcondition assertion. Currently placed in function bodies. Later, should be moved to declarations.
* `Expects` // precondition assertion. Currently placed in function bodies. Later, should be moved to declarations.
// `Expects(p)` terminates the program unless `p==true`
// ??? `Expect` in under control of some options (enforcement, error message, alternatives to terminate)
* `Ensures` // postcondition assertion. Currently placed in function bodies. Later, should be moved to declarations.
<a name="SS-utilities"></a>
@ -12110,26 +12111,26 @@ When using exceptions as your error handling mechanism, always document this beh
If you define a destructor, you should not use the compiler-generated copy or move operation; you probably need to define or suppress copy and/or move.
class X {
HANDLE hnd;
// ...
public:
class X {
HANDLE hnd;
// ...
public:
~X() { /* custom stuff, such as closing hnd */ }
// suspicious: no mention of copying or moving -- what happens to hnd?
};
// suspicious: no mention of copying or moving -- what happens to hnd?
};
X x1;
X x2 = x1; // pitfall: either fails to compile, or does something suspicious
x2 = x1; // pitfall: either fails to compile, or does something suspicious
X x1;
X x2 = x1; // pitfall: either fails to compile, or does something suspicious
x2 = x1; // pitfall: either fails to compile, or does something suspicious
If you define copying, and any base or member has a type that defines a move operation, you should also define a move operation.
class x {
string s; // defines more efficient move operations
// ... other data members ...
public:
class x {
string s; // defines more efficient move operations
// ... other data members ...
public:
x(const x&) { /* stuff */ }
x& operator=(const x&) { /* stuff */ }
@ -12137,12 +12138,12 @@ If you define copying, and any base or member has a type that defines a move ope
// (why wasn't the custom "stuff" repeated here?)
};
x test()
{
x local;
x test()
{
x local;
// ...
return local; // pitfall: will be inefficient and/or do the wrong thing
}
}
If you define any of the copy constructor, copy assignment operator, or destructor, you probably should define the others.