mirror of
https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines.git
synced 2024-03-22 13:30:58 +08:00
Closed #484.
This commit is contained in:
parent
46f38a7917
commit
e4f908093d
|
@ -14567,7 +14567,7 @@ 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? NO. (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.
|
||||
* 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?
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user