2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
<?xml version="1.0"?>
|
|
|
|
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="styleguide.xsl"?>
|
2008-07-02 00:28:01 +08:00
|
|
|
<GUIDE title="Google C++ Style Guide">
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 00:13:08 +08:00
|
|
|
<p align="right">
|
|
|
|
|
2010-05-13 00:52:16 +08:00
|
|
|
Revision 3.161
|
2009-01-06 00:13:08 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<address>
|
|
|
|
Benjy Weinberger<br/>
|
|
|
|
Craig Silverstein<br/>
|
|
|
|
Gregory Eitzmann<br/>
|
|
|
|
Mark Mentovai<br/>
|
|
|
|
Tashana Landray
|
|
|
|
</address>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<OVERVIEW>
|
|
|
|
<CATEGORY title="Important Note">
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Displaying Hidden Details in this Guide">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
This style guide contains many details that are initially
|
|
|
|
hidden from view. They are marked by the triangle icon, which you
|
|
|
|
see here on your left. Click it now.
|
|
|
|
You should see "Hooray" appear below.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Hooray! Now you know you can expand points to get more
|
|
|
|
details. Alternatively, there's an "expand all" at the
|
|
|
|
top of this document.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
</CATEGORY>
|
|
|
|
<CATEGORY title="Background">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
C++ is the main development language
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
used by many of Google's open-source
|
|
|
|
projects.
|
|
|
|
As every C++ programmer knows, the language has many powerful features,
|
|
|
|
but this power brings with it complexity, which in turn can make code
|
|
|
|
more bug-prone and harder to read and maintain.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The goal of this guide is to manage this complexity by describing
|
|
|
|
in detail the dos and don'ts of writing C++
|
|
|
|
code. These rules exist to
|
|
|
|
keep
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the
|
|
|
|
code base manageable while still allowing coders to use C++ language
|
|
|
|
features productively.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<em>Style</em>, also known as readability, is what we call the
|
|
|
|
conventions that govern our C++ code. The term Style is a bit of a
|
|
|
|
misnomer, since these conventions cover far more than just source
|
|
|
|
file formatting.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
One way in which we keep the code base manageable is by enforcing
|
|
|
|
<em>consistency</em>.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is very important that any
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
programmer
|
|
|
|
be able to look at another's code and quickly understand it.
|
|
|
|
Maintaining a uniform style and following conventions means that we can
|
|
|
|
more easily use "pattern-matching" to infer what various symbols are
|
|
|
|
and what invariants are true about them. Creating common, required
|
|
|
|
idioms and patterns makes code much easier to understand. In some
|
|
|
|
cases there might be good arguments for changing certain style
|
|
|
|
rules, but we nonetheless keep things as they are in order to
|
|
|
|
preserve consistency.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Another issue this guide addresses is that of C++ feature bloat.
|
|
|
|
C++ is a huge language with many advanced features. In some cases
|
|
|
|
we constrain, or even ban, use of certain features. We do this to
|
|
|
|
keep code simple and to avoid the various common errors and
|
|
|
|
problems that these features can cause. This guide lists these
|
|
|
|
features and explains why their use is restricted.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open-source projects developed by Google
|
|
|
|
conform to the requirements in this guide.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Note that this guide is not a C++ tutorial: we assume that the
|
|
|
|
reader is familiar with the language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</CATEGORY>
|
|
|
|
</OVERVIEW>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CATEGORY title="Header Files">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
In general, every <code>.cc</code> file should have an associated
|
|
|
|
<code>.h</code> file. There are some common exceptions, such as
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unittests
|
|
|
|
and small <code>.cc</code> files containing just a <code>main()</code>
|
|
|
|
function.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Correct use of header files can make a huge difference to the
|
|
|
|
readability, size and performance of your code.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The following rules will guide you through the various pitfalls of
|
|
|
|
using header files.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="The #define Guard">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
All header files should have <code>#define</code> guards to
|
|
|
|
prevent multiple inclusion. The format of the symbol name
|
|
|
|
should be
|
|
|
|
<code><i><PROJECT></i>_<i><PATH></i>_<i><FILE></i>_H_</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
To guarantee uniqueness, they should be based on the full path
|
|
|
|
in a project's source tree. For example, the file
|
|
|
|
<code>foo/src/bar/baz.h</code> in project <code>foo</code> should
|
|
|
|
have the following guard:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
#ifndef FOO_BAR_BAZ_H_
|
|
|
|
#define FOO_BAR_BAZ_H_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#endif // FOO_BAR_BAZ_H_
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Header File Dependencies">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
Don't use an <code>#include</code> when a forward declaration
|
|
|
|
would suffice.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
When you include a header file you introduce a dependency that
|
|
|
|
will cause your code to be recompiled whenever the header file
|
|
|
|
changes. If your header file includes other header files, any
|
|
|
|
change to those files will cause any code that includes your
|
|
|
|
header to be recompiled. Therefore, we prefer to minimize
|
|
|
|
includes, particularly includes of header files in other
|
|
|
|
header files.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
You can significantly minimize the number of header files you
|
|
|
|
need to include in your own header files by using forward
|
|
|
|
declarations. For example, if your header file uses the
|
|
|
|
<code>File</code> class in ways that do not require access to
|
|
|
|
the declaration of the <code>File</code> class, your header
|
|
|
|
file can just forward declare <code>class File;</code> instead
|
|
|
|
of having to <code>#include "file/base/file.h"</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
How can we use a class <code>Foo</code> in a header file
|
|
|
|
without access to its definition?
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> We can declare data members of type <code>Foo*</code> or
|
|
|
|
<code>Foo&</code>.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> We can declare (but not define) functions with arguments,
|
|
|
|
and/or return values, of type <code>Foo</code>.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> We can declare static data members of type
|
|
|
|
<code>Foo</code>. This is because static data members
|
|
|
|
are defined outside the class definition.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, you must include the header file for
|
|
|
|
<code>Foo</code> if your class subclasses <code>Foo</code> or
|
|
|
|
has a data member of type <code>Foo</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it makes sense to have pointer (or better,
|
|
|
|
<code>scoped_ptr</code>)
|
|
|
|
members instead of object members. However, this complicates code
|
|
|
|
readability and imposes a performance penalty, so avoid doing
|
|
|
|
this transformation if the only purpose is to minimize includes
|
|
|
|
in header files.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Of course, <code>.cc</code> files typically do require the
|
|
|
|
definitions of the classes they use, and usually have to
|
|
|
|
include several header files.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
2010-05-13 00:52:16 +08:00
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Note:">
|
|
|
|
If you use a symbol <code>Foo</code> in your source file, you
|
|
|
|
should bring in a definition for <code>Foo</code> yourself,
|
|
|
|
either via an #include or via a forward declaration. Do not
|
|
|
|
depend on the symbol being brought in transitively via headers
|
|
|
|
not directly included. One exception is if <code>Foo</code>
|
|
|
|
is used in <code>myfile.cc</code>, it's ok to #include (or
|
|
|
|
forward-declare) <code>Foo</code> in <code>myfile.h</code>,
|
|
|
|
instead of <code>myfile.cc</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Inline Functions">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Define functions inline only when they are small, say, 10 lines
|
|
|
|
or less.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
You can declare functions in a way that allows the compiler to
|
|
|
|
expand them inline rather than calling them through the usual
|
|
|
|
function call mechanism.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Inlining a function can generate more efficient object code,
|
|
|
|
as long as the inlined function is small. Feel free to inline
|
|
|
|
accessors and mutators, and other short, performance-critical
|
|
|
|
functions.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
Overuse of inlining can actually make programs slower.
|
|
|
|
Depending on a function's size, inlining it can cause the code
|
|
|
|
size to increase or decrease. Inlining a very small accessor
|
|
|
|
function will usually decrease code size while inlining a very
|
|
|
|
large function can dramatically increase code size. On modern
|
|
|
|
processors smaller code usually runs faster due to better use
|
|
|
|
of the instruction cache.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
A decent rule of thumb is to not inline a function if it is
|
|
|
|
more than 10 lines long. Beware of destructors, which are
|
|
|
|
often longer than they appear because of implicit member-
|
|
|
|
and base-destructor calls!
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Another useful rule of thumb: it's typically not cost
|
|
|
|
effective to inline functions with loops or switch
|
|
|
|
statements (unless, in the common case, the loop or switch
|
|
|
|
statement is never executed).
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
It is important to know that functions are not always
|
|
|
|
inlined even if they are declared as such; for example,
|
|
|
|
virtual and recursive functions are not normally inlined.
|
|
|
|
Usually recursive functions should not be inline. The main
|
|
|
|
reason for making a virtual function inline is to place its
|
|
|
|
definition in the class, either for convenience or to
|
|
|
|
document its behavior, e.g., for accessors and mutators.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="The -inl.h Files">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
You may use file names with a <code>-inl.h</code> suffix to define
|
|
|
|
complex inline functions when needed.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The definition of an inline function needs to be in a header
|
|
|
|
file, so that the compiler has the definition available for
|
|
|
|
inlining at the call sites. However, implementation code
|
|
|
|
properly belongs in <code>.cc</code> files, and we do not like
|
|
|
|
to have much actual code in <code>.h</code> files unless there
|
|
|
|
is a readability or performance advantage.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If an inline function definition is short, with very little,
|
|
|
|
if any, logic in it, you should put the code in your
|
|
|
|
<code>.h</code> file. For example, accessors and mutators
|
|
|
|
should certainly be inside a class definition. More complex
|
|
|
|
inline functions may also be put in a <code>.h</code> file for
|
|
|
|
the convenience of the implementer and callers, though if this
|
|
|
|
makes the <code>.h</code> file too unwieldy you can instead
|
|
|
|
put that code in a separate <code>-inl.h</code> file.
|
|
|
|
This separates the implementation from the class definition,
|
|
|
|
while still allowing the implementation to be included where
|
|
|
|
necessary.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Another use of <code>-inl.h</code> files is for definitions of
|
|
|
|
function templates. This can be used to keep your template
|
|
|
|
definitions easy to read.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Do not forget that a <code>-inl.h</code> file requires a
|
|
|
|
<a href="#The__define_Guard"><code>#define</code> guard</a> just
|
|
|
|
like any other header file.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Function Parameter Ordering">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
When defining a function, parameter order is: inputs,
|
|
|
|
then outputs.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Parameters to C/C++ functions are either input to the
|
|
|
|
function, output from the function, or both. Input parameters
|
|
|
|
are usually values or <code>const</code> references, while output
|
|
|
|
and input/output parameters will be non-<code>const</code>
|
|
|
|
pointers. When ordering function parameters, put all input-only
|
|
|
|
parameters before any output parameters. In particular, do not add
|
|
|
|
new parameters to the end of the function just because they are
|
|
|
|
new; place new input-only parameters before the output
|
|
|
|
parameters.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
This is not a hard-and-fast rule. Parameters that are both
|
|
|
|
input and output (often classes/structs) muddy the waters,
|
|
|
|
and, as always, consistency with related functions may require
|
|
|
|
you to bend the rule.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Names and Order of Includes">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use standard order for readability and to avoid hidden
|
|
|
|
dependencies: C library, C++ library,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other libraries' <code>.h</code>, your
|
|
|
|
project's
|
|
|
|
<code>.h</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of a project's header files should be
|
|
|
|
listed as descentants of the project's source directory
|
|
|
|
without use of UNIX directory shortcuts <code>.</code> (the current
|
|
|
|
directory) or <code>..</code> (the parent directory). For
|
|
|
|
example,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<code>google-awesome-project/src/base/logging.h</code>
|
|
|
|
should be included as
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
#include "base/logging.h"
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
In <code><var>dir/foo</var>.cc</code>, whose main purpose is
|
|
|
|
to implement or test the stuff in
|
|
|
|
<code><var>dir2/foo2</var>.h</code>, order your includes as
|
|
|
|
follows:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
|
|
<li> <code><var>dir2/foo2</var>.h</code> (preferred location
|
|
|
|
— see details below).</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> C system files.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> C++ system files.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Other libraries' <code>.h</code> files.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>
|
|
|
|
Your project's
|
|
|
|
<code>.h</code> files.</li>
|
|
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The preferred ordering reduces hidden dependencies. We want
|
|
|
|
every header file to be compilable on its own. The easiest
|
|
|
|
way to achieve this is to make sure that every one of them is
|
|
|
|
the first <code>.h</code> file <code>#include</code>d in some
|
|
|
|
<code>.cc</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<code><var>dir/foo</var>.cc</code> and
|
|
|
|
<code><var>dir2/foo2</var>.h</code> are often in the same
|
|
|
|
directory (e.g. <code>base/basictypes_unittest.cc</code> and
|
|
|
|
<code>base/basictypes.h</code>), but can be in different
|
|
|
|
directories too.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Within each section it is nice to order the includes
|
|
|
|
alphabetically.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
For example, the includes in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<code>google-awesome-project/src/foo/internal/fooserver.cc</code>
|
|
|
|
might look like this:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
#include "foo/public/fooserver.h" // Preferred location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/types.h>
|
|
|
|
#include <unistd.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <hash_map>
|
|
|
|
#include <vector>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include "base/basictypes.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "base/commandlineflags.h"
|
|
|
|
#include "foo/public/bar.h"
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
</CATEGORY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CATEGORY title="Scoping">
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Namespaces">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Unnamed namespaces in <code>.cc</code> files are encouraged. With
|
|
|
|
named namespaces, choose the name based on the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
project, and possibly its path.
|
|
|
|
Do not use a <SYNTAX>using-directive</SYNTAX>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
Namespaces subdivide the global scope into distinct, named
|
|
|
|
scopes, and so are useful for preventing name collisions in
|
|
|
|
the global scope.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Namespaces provide a (hierarchical) axis of naming, in
|
|
|
|
addition to the (also hierarchical) name axis provided by
|
|
|
|
classes.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
For example, if two different projects have a class
|
|
|
|
<code>Foo</code> in the global scope, these symbols may
|
|
|
|
collide at compile time or at runtime. If each project
|
|
|
|
places their code in a namespace, <code>project1::Foo</code>
|
|
|
|
and <code>project2::Foo</code> are now distinct symbols that
|
|
|
|
do not collide.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Namespaces can be confusing, because they provide an
|
|
|
|
additional (hierarchical) axis of naming, in addition to the
|
|
|
|
(also hierarchical) name axis provided by classes.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Use of unnamed spaces in header files can easily cause
|
|
|
|
violations of the C++ One Definition Rule (ODR).
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Use namespaces according to the policy described below.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Unnamed Namespaces">
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> Unnamed namespaces are allowed and even encouraged in
|
|
|
|
<code>.cc</code> files, to avoid runtime naming
|
|
|
|
conflicts:
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
namespace { // This is in a .cc file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// The content of a namespace is not indented
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
enum { kUnused, kEOF, kError }; // Commonly used tokens.
|
|
|
|
bool AtEof() { return pos_ == kEOF; } // Uses our namespace's EOF.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // namespace
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
However, file-scope declarations that are
|
|
|
|
associated with a particular class may be declared
|
|
|
|
in that class as types, static data members or
|
|
|
|
static member functions rather than as members of
|
|
|
|
an unnamed namespace. Terminate the unnamed
|
|
|
|
namespace as shown, with a comment <code>//
|
|
|
|
namespace</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Do not use unnamed namespaces in <code>.h</code>
|
|
|
|
files.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Named Namespaces">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Named namespaces should be used as follows:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> Namespaces wrap the entire source file after includes,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="http://google-gflags.googlecode.com/">gflags</a>
|
|
|
|
definitions/declarations, and forward declarations of classes
|
|
|
|
from other namespaces:
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// In the .h file
|
|
|
|
namespace mynamespace {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// All declarations are within the namespace scope.
|
|
|
|
// Notice the lack of indentation.
|
|
|
|
class MyClass {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
void Foo();
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // namespace mynamespace
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// In the .cc file
|
|
|
|
namespace mynamespace {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Definition of functions is within scope of the namespace.
|
|
|
|
void MyClass::Foo() {
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // namespace mynamespace
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The typical <code>.cc</code> file might have more
|
|
|
|
complex detail, including the need to reference classes
|
|
|
|
in other namespaces.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
#include "a.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFINE_bool(someflag, false, "dummy flag");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class C; // Forward declaration of class C in the global namespace.
|
|
|
|
namespace a { class A; } // Forward declaration of a::A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace b {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...code for b... // Code goes against the left margin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // namespace b
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li> Do not declare anything in namespace
|
|
|
|
<code>std</code>, not even forward declarations of
|
|
|
|
standard library classes. Declaring entities in
|
|
|
|
namespace <code>std</code> is undefined behavior,
|
|
|
|
i.e., not portable. To declare entities from the
|
|
|
|
standard library, include the appropriate header
|
|
|
|
file.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li> You may not use a <SYNTAX>using-directive</SYNTAX> to
|
|
|
|
make all names from a namespace available.
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Forbidden -- This pollutes the namespace.
|
|
|
|
using namespace foo;
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li> You may use a <SYNTAX>using-declaration</SYNTAX>
|
|
|
|
anywhere in a <code>.cc</code> file, and in functions,
|
|
|
|
methods or classes in <code>.h</code> files.
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// OK in .cc files.
|
|
|
|
// Must be in a function, method or class in .h files.
|
|
|
|
using ::foo::bar;
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li> Namespace aliases are allowed anywhere in a
|
|
|
|
<code>.cc</code> file, and in functions and methods in
|
|
|
|
<code>.h</code> files.
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// OK in .cc files.
|
|
|
|
// Must be in a function or method in .h files.
|
|
|
|
namespace fbz = ::foo::bar::baz;
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Nested Classes">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Although you may use public nested classes when they are part of
|
|
|
|
an interface, consider a <a HREF="#Namespaces">namespace</a> to
|
|
|
|
keep declarations out of the global scope.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
A class can define another class within it; this is also
|
|
|
|
called a <SYNTAX>member class</SYNTAX>.
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
class Foo {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
// Bar is a member class, nested within Foo.
|
|
|
|
class Bar {
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
This is useful when the nested (or member) class is only used
|
|
|
|
by the enclosing class; making it a member puts it in the
|
|
|
|
enclosing class scope rather than polluting the outer scope
|
|
|
|
with the class name. Nested classes can be forward declared
|
|
|
|
within the enclosing class and then defined in the
|
|
|
|
<code>.cc</code> file to avoid including the nested class
|
|
|
|
definition in the enclosing class declaration, since the
|
|
|
|
nested class definition is usually only relevant to the
|
|
|
|
implementation.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
Nested classes can be forward-declared only within the
|
|
|
|
definition of the enclosing class. Thus, any header file
|
|
|
|
manipulating a <code>Foo::Bar*</code> pointer will have to
|
|
|
|
include the full class declaration for <code>Foo</code>.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
Do not make nested classes public unless they are actually
|
|
|
|
part of the interface, e.g., a class that holds a set of
|
|
|
|
options for some method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Nonmember, Static Member, and Global Functions">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Prefer nonmember functions within a namespace or static member
|
|
|
|
functions to global functions; use completely global functions
|
|
|
|
rarely.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Nonmember and static member functions can be useful in some
|
|
|
|
situations. Putting nonmember functions in a namespace avoids
|
|
|
|
polluting the global namespace.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
Nonmember and static member functions may make more sense as
|
|
|
|
members of a new class, especially if they access external
|
|
|
|
resources or have significant dependencies.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it is useful, or even necessary, to define a
|
|
|
|
function not bound to a class instance. Such a function can
|
|
|
|
be either a static member or a nonmember function.
|
|
|
|
Nonmember functions should not depend on external variables,
|
|
|
|
and should nearly always exist in a namespace. Rather than
|
|
|
|
creating classes only to group static member functions which
|
|
|
|
do not share static data, use
|
|
|
|
<a href="#Namespaces">namespaces</a> instead.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Functions defined in the same compilation unit as production
|
|
|
|
classes may introduce unnecessary coupling and link-time
|
|
|
|
dependencies when directly called from other compilation
|
|
|
|
units; static member functions are particularly susceptible
|
|
|
|
to this. Consider extracting a new class, or placing the
|
|
|
|
functions in a namespace possibly in a separate library.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If you must define a nonmember function and it is only
|
|
|
|
needed in its <code>.cc</code> file, use an unnamed
|
|
|
|
<a HREF="#Namespaces">namespace</a> or <code>static</code>
|
|
|
|
linkage (eg <code>static int Foo() {...}</code>) to limit
|
|
|
|
its scope.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Local Variables">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Place a function's variables in the narrowest scope possible,
|
|
|
|
and initialize variables in the declaration.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
C++ allows you to declare variables anywhere in a function.
|
|
|
|
We encourage you to declare them in as local a scope as
|
|
|
|
possible, and as close to the first use as possible. This
|
|
|
|
makes it easier for the reader to find the declaration and see
|
|
|
|
what type the variable is and what it was initialized to. In
|
|
|
|
particular, initialization should be used instead of
|
|
|
|
declaration and assignment, e.g.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
int i;
|
|
|
|
i = f(); // Bad -- initialization separate from declaration.
|
|
|
|
int j = g(); // Good -- declaration has initialization.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Note that gcc implements <code>for (int i = 0; i
|
|
|
|
< 10; ++i)</code> correctly (the scope of <code>i</code> is
|
|
|
|
only the scope of the <code>for</code> loop), so you can then
|
|
|
|
reuse <code>i</code> in another <code>for</code> loop in the
|
|
|
|
same scope. It also correctly scopes declarations in
|
|
|
|
<code>if</code> and <code>while</code> statements, e.g.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
while (const char* p = strchr(str, '/')) str = p + 1;
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
There is one caveat: if the variable is an object, its
|
|
|
|
constructor is invoked every time it enters scope and is
|
|
|
|
created, and its destructor is invoked every time it goes
|
|
|
|
out of scope.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Inefficient implementation:
|
|
|
|
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) {
|
|
|
|
Foo f; // My ctor and dtor get called 1000000 times each.
|
|
|
|
f.DoSomething(i);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
It may be more efficient to declare such a variable used in a
|
|
|
|
loop outside that loop:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
Foo f; // My ctor and dtor get called once each.
|
|
|
|
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; ++i) {
|
|
|
|
f.DoSomething(i);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Static and Global Variables">
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
Static or global variables of class type are forbidden: they cause
|
|
|
|
hard-to-find bugs due to indeterminate order of construction and
|
|
|
|
destruction.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
Objects with static storage duration, including global variables,
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
static variables, static class member variables, and function static
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
variables, must be Plain Old Data (POD): only ints, chars, floats, or
|
|
|
|
pointers, or arrays/structs of POD.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
The order in which class constructors and initializers for
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
static variables are called is only partially specified in C++ and can
|
|
|
|
even change from build to build, which can cause bugs that are difficult
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
to find. Therefore in addition to banning globals of class type, we do
|
|
|
|
not allow static POD variables to be initialized with the result of a
|
|
|
|
function, unless that function (such as getenv(), or getpid()) does not
|
|
|
|
itself depend on any other globals.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Likewise, the order in which destructors are called is defined to be the
|
|
|
|
reverse of the order in which the constructors were called. Since
|
|
|
|
constructor order is indeterminate, so is destructor order.
|
|
|
|
For example, at program-end time a static variable might have
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
been destroyed, but code still running -- perhaps in another thread --
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
tries to access it and fails. Or the destructor for a static 'string'
|
|
|
|
variable might be run prior to the destructor for another variable that
|
|
|
|
contains a reference to that string.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
As a result we only allow static variables to contain POD data. This
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
rule completely disallows <code>vector</code> (use C arrays instead), or
|
|
|
|
<code>string</code> (use <code>const char []</code>).
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
If you need a static or global variable of a class type, consider
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
initializing a pointer (which will never be freed), from either your
|
|
|
|
main() function or from pthread_once(). Note that this must be a raw
|
|
|
|
pointer, not a "smart" pointer, since the smart pointer's destructor
|
|
|
|
will have the order-of-destructor issue that we are trying to avoid.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
</CATEGORY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CATEGORY title="Classes">
|
|
|
|
Classes are the fundamental unit of code in C++. Naturally, we use
|
|
|
|
them extensively. This section lists the main dos and don'ts you
|
|
|
|
should follow when writing a class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Doing Work in Constructors">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
In general, constructors should merely set member variables to their
|
|
|
|
initial values. Any complex initialization should go in an explicit
|
|
|
|
<code>Init()</code> method.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
It is possible to perform initialization in the body of the
|
|
|
|
constructor.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Convenience in typing. No need to worry about whether the
|
|
|
|
class has been initialized or not.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
The problems with doing work in constructors are:
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> There is no easy way for constructors to signal errors,
|
|
|
|
short of using exceptions (which are
|
|
|
|
<a HREF="#Exceptions">forbidden</a>).
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> If the work fails, we now have an object whose
|
|
|
|
initialization code failed, so it may be an
|
|
|
|
indeterminate state.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> If the work calls virtual functions, these calls will
|
|
|
|
not get dispatched to the subclass implementations.
|
|
|
|
Future modification to your class can quietly introduce
|
|
|
|
this problem even if your class is not currently
|
|
|
|
subclassed, causing much confusion.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> If someone creates a global variable of this type
|
|
|
|
(which is against the rules, but still), the
|
|
|
|
constructor code will be called before
|
|
|
|
<code>main()</code>, possibly breaking some implicit
|
|
|
|
assumptions in the constructor code. For instance,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="http://google-gflags.googlecode.com/">gflags</a>
|
|
|
|
will not yet have been initialized.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
If your object requires non-trivial initialization, consider
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
having an explicit <code>Init()</code> method. In particular,
|
|
|
|
constructors should not call virtual functions, attempt to raise
|
|
|
|
errors, access potentially uninitialized global variables, etc.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Default Constructors">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
You must define a default constructor if your class defines
|
|
|
|
member variables and has no other constructors. Otherwise the
|
|
|
|
compiler will do it for you, badly.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
The default constructor is called when we <code>new</code> a
|
|
|
|
class object with no arguments. It is always called when
|
|
|
|
calling <code>new[]</code> (for arrays).
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Initializing structures by default, to hold "impossible"
|
|
|
|
values, makes debugging much easier.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
Extra work for you, the code writer.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
If your class defines member variables and has no other
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
constructors you must define a default constructor (one that
|
|
|
|
takes no arguments). It should preferably initialize the
|
|
|
|
object in such a way that its internal state is consistent
|
|
|
|
and valid.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The reason for this is that if you have no other
|
|
|
|
constructors and do not define a default constructor, the
|
|
|
|
compiler will generate one for you. This compiler
|
|
|
|
generated constructor may not initialize your object
|
|
|
|
sensibly.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If your class inherits from an existing class but you add no
|
|
|
|
new member variables, you are not required to have a default
|
|
|
|
constructor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Explicit Constructors">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use the C++ keyword <code>explicit</code> for constructors with
|
|
|
|
one argument.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
Normally, if a constructor takes one argument, it can be used
|
|
|
|
as a conversion. For instance, if you define
|
|
|
|
<code>Foo::Foo(string name)</code> and then pass a string to a
|
|
|
|
function that expects a <code>Foo</code>, the constructor will
|
|
|
|
be called to convert the string into a <code>Foo</code> and
|
|
|
|
will pass the <code>Foo</code> to your function for you. This
|
|
|
|
can be convenient but is also a source of trouble when things
|
|
|
|
get converted and new objects created without you meaning them
|
|
|
|
to. Declaring a constructor <code>explicit</code> prevents it
|
|
|
|
from being invoked implicitly as a conversion.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Avoids undesirable conversions.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
None.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
We require all single argument constructors to be
|
|
|
|
explicit. Always put <code>explicit</code> in front of
|
|
|
|
one-argument constructors in the class definition:
|
|
|
|
<code>explicit Foo(string name);</code>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The exception is copy constructors, which, in the rare
|
|
|
|
cases when we allow them, should probably not be
|
|
|
|
<code>explicit</code>.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classes that are intended to be
|
|
|
|
transparent wrappers around other classes are also
|
|
|
|
exceptions.
|
|
|
|
Such exceptions should be clearly marked with comments.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Copy Constructors">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
Provide a copy constructor and assignment operator only when necessary.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise, disable them with <code>DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN</code>.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
The copy constructor and assignment operator are used to create copies
|
|
|
|
of objects. The copy constructor is implicitly invoked by the
|
|
|
|
compiler in some situations, e.g. passing objects by value.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Copy constructors make it easy to copy objects. STL
|
|
|
|
containers require that all contents be copyable and
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
assignable. Copy constructors can be more efficient than
|
|
|
|
<code>CopyFrom()</code>-style workarounds because they combine
|
|
|
|
construction with copying, the compiler can elide them in some
|
|
|
|
contexts, and they make it easier to avoid heap allocation.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
Implicit copying of objects in C++ is a rich source of bugs
|
|
|
|
and of performance problems. It also reduces readability, as
|
|
|
|
it becomes hard to track which objects are being passed around
|
|
|
|
by value as opposed to by reference, and therefore where
|
|
|
|
changes to an object are reflected.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
Few classes need to be copyable. Most should have neither a
|
|
|
|
copy constructor nor an assignment operator. In many situations,
|
|
|
|
a pointer or reference will work just as well as a copied value,
|
|
|
|
with better performance. For example, you can pass function
|
|
|
|
parameters by reference or pointer instead of by value, and you can
|
|
|
|
store pointers rather than objects in an STL container.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If your class needs to be copyable, prefer providing a copy method,
|
|
|
|
such as <code>CopyFrom()</code> or <code>Clone()</code>, rather than
|
|
|
|
a copy constructor, because such methods cannot be invoked
|
|
|
|
implicitly. If a copy method is insufficient in your situation
|
|
|
|
(e.g. for performance reasons, or because your class needs to be
|
|
|
|
stored by value in an STL container), provide both a copy
|
|
|
|
constructor and assignment operator.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If your class does not need a copy constructor or assignment
|
|
|
|
operator, you must explicitly disable them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To do so, add dummy declarations for the copy constructor and
|
|
|
|
assignment operator in the <code>private:</code> section of your
|
|
|
|
class, but do not provide any corresponding definition (so that
|
|
|
|
any attempt to use them results in a link error).
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
For convenience, a <code>DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN</code> macro
|
|
|
|
can be used:
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// A macro to disallow the copy constructor and operator= functions
|
|
|
|
// This should be used in the private: declarations for a class
|
|
|
|
#define DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(TypeName) \
|
|
|
|
TypeName(const TypeName&); \
|
|
|
|
void operator=(const TypeName&)
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Then, in <code>class Foo</code>:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
class Foo {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
Foo(int f);
|
|
|
|
~Foo();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(Foo);
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Structs vs. Classes">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use a <code>struct</code> only for passive objects that carry data;
|
|
|
|
everything else is a <code>class</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The <code>struct</code> and <code>class</code> keywords behave
|
|
|
|
almost identically in C++. We add our own semantic meanings
|
|
|
|
to each keyword, so you should use the appropriate keyword for
|
|
|
|
the data-type you're defining.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<code>structs</code> should be used for passive objects that carry
|
|
|
|
data, and may have associated constants, but lack any functionality
|
|
|
|
other than access/setting the data members. The
|
|
|
|
accessing/setting of fields is done by directly accessing the
|
|
|
|
fields rather than through method invocations. Methods should
|
|
|
|
not provide behavior but should only be used to set up the
|
|
|
|
data members, e.g., constructor, destructor,
|
|
|
|
<code>Initialize()</code>, <code>Reset()</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>Validate()</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If more functionality is required, a <code>class</code> is more
|
|
|
|
appropriate. If in doubt, make it a <code>class</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
For consistency with STL, you can use <code>struct</code>
|
|
|
|
instead of <code>class</code> for functors and traits.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Note that member variables in structs and classes have
|
|
|
|
<a HREF="#Variable_Names">different naming rules</a>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Inheritance">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Composition is often more appropriate than inheritance. When
|
|
|
|
using inheritance, make it <code>public</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
When a sub-class inherits from a base class, it includes the
|
|
|
|
definitions of all the data and operations that the parent
|
|
|
|
base class defines. In practice, inheritance is used in two
|
|
|
|
major ways in C++: implementation inheritance, in which
|
|
|
|
actual code is inherited by the child, and <A HREF="#Interfaces">interface inheritance</A>, in which only
|
|
|
|
method names are inherited.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Implementation inheritance reduces code size by re-using the
|
|
|
|
base class code as it specializes an existing type. Because
|
|
|
|
inheritance is a compile-time declaration, you and the
|
|
|
|
compiler can understand the operation and detect errors.
|
|
|
|
Interface inheritance can be used to programmatically enforce
|
|
|
|
that a class expose a particular API. Again, the compiler
|
|
|
|
can detect errors, in this case, when a class does not define
|
|
|
|
a necessary method of the API.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
For implementation inheritance, because the code implementing
|
|
|
|
a sub-class is spread between the base and the sub-class, it
|
|
|
|
can be more difficult to understand an implementation. The
|
|
|
|
sub-class cannot override functions that are not virtual, so
|
|
|
|
the sub-class cannot change implementation. The base class
|
|
|
|
may also define some data members, so that specifies physical
|
|
|
|
layout of the base class.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
All inheritance should be <code>public</code>. If you want to
|
|
|
|
do private inheritance, you should be including an instance of
|
|
|
|
the base class as a member instead.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Do not overuse implementation inheritance. Composition is
|
|
|
|
often more appropriate. Try to restrict use of inheritance
|
|
|
|
to the "is-a" case: <code>Bar</code> subclasses
|
|
|
|
<code>Foo</code> if it can reasonably be said that
|
|
|
|
<code>Bar</code> "is a kind of" <code>Foo</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Make your destructor <code>virtual</code> if necessary. If
|
|
|
|
your class has virtual methods, its destructor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
should be virtual.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Limit the use of <code>protected</code> to those member
|
|
|
|
functions that might need to be accessed from subclasses.
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
Note that <a href="#Access_Control">data members should
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
be private</a>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
When redefining an inherited virtual function, explicitly
|
|
|
|
declare it <code>virtual</code> in the declaration of the
|
|
|
|
derived class. Rationale: If <code>virtual</code> is
|
|
|
|
omitted, the reader has to check all ancestors of the
|
|
|
|
class in question to determine if the function is virtual
|
|
|
|
or not.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Multiple Inheritance">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Only very rarely is multiple implementation inheritance actually
|
|
|
|
useful. We allow multiple inheritance only when at most one of
|
|
|
|
the base classes has an implementation; all other base classes
|
|
|
|
must be <A HREF="#Interfaces">pure interface</A> classes tagged
|
|
|
|
with the <code>Interface</code> suffix.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
Multiple inheritance allows a sub-class to have more than one
|
|
|
|
base class. We distinguish between base classes that are
|
|
|
|
<em>pure interfaces</em> and those that have an
|
|
|
|
<em>implementation</em>.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Multiple implementation inheritance may let you re-use even more code
|
|
|
|
than single inheritance (see <a HREF="#Inheritance">Inheritance</a>).
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
Only very rarely is multiple <em>implementation</em>
|
|
|
|
inheritance actually useful. When multiple implementation
|
|
|
|
inheritance seems like the solution, you can usually find a
|
|
|
|
different, more explicit, and cleaner solution.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
Multiple inheritance is allowed only when all superclasses, with the
|
|
|
|
possible exception of the first one, are <A HREF="#Interfaces">pure
|
|
|
|
interfaces</A>. In order to ensure that they remain pure interfaces,
|
|
|
|
they must end with the <code>Interface</code> suffix.
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Note:">
|
|
|
|
There is an <a HREF="#Windows_Code">exception</a> to this
|
|
|
|
rule on Windows.
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Interfaces">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Classes that satisfy certain conditions are allowed, but not required, to
|
|
|
|
end with an <code>Interface</code> suffix.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
A class is a pure interface if it meets the following requirements:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> It has only public pure virtual ("<code>= 0</code>") methods
|
|
|
|
and static methods (but see below for destructor).
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> It may not have non-static data members.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> It need not have any constructors defined. If a constructor is
|
|
|
|
provided, it must take no arguments and it must be protected.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> If it is a subclass, it may only be derived from classes
|
|
|
|
that satisfy these conditions and are tagged with the
|
|
|
|
<code>Interface</code> suffix.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
An interface class can never be directly instantiated
|
|
|
|
because of the pure virtual method(s) it declares. To make
|
|
|
|
sure all implementations of the interface can be destroyed
|
|
|
|
correctly, they must also declare a virtual destructor (in
|
|
|
|
an exception to the first rule, this should not be pure). See
|
|
|
|
Stroustrup, <cite>The C++ Programming Language</cite>, 3rd
|
|
|
|
edition, section 12.4 for details.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Tagging a class with the <code>Interface</code> suffix lets
|
|
|
|
others know that they must not add implemented methods or non
|
|
|
|
static data members. This is particularly important in the case of
|
|
|
|
<A HREF="#Multiple_Inheritance">multiple inheritance</A>.
|
|
|
|
Additionally, the interface concept is already well-understood by
|
|
|
|
Java programmers.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
The <code>Interface</code> suffix lengthens the class name, which
|
|
|
|
can make it harder to read and understand. Also, the interface
|
|
|
|
property may be considered an implementation detail that shouldn't
|
|
|
|
be exposed to clients.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
A class may end with <code>Interface</code> only if it meets the
|
|
|
|
above requirements. We do not require the converse, however:
|
|
|
|
classes that meet the above requirements are not required to end
|
|
|
|
with <code>Interface</code>.
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Operator Overloading">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Do not overload operators except in rare, special circumstances.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
A class can define that operators such as <code>+</code> and
|
|
|
|
<code>/</code> operate on the class as if it were a built-in
|
|
|
|
type.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Can make code appear more intuitive because a class will
|
|
|
|
behave in the same way as built-in types (such as
|
|
|
|
<code>int</code>). Overloaded operators are more playful
|
|
|
|
names for functions that are less-colorfully named, such as
|
|
|
|
<code>Equals()</code> or <code>Add()</code>. For some
|
|
|
|
template functions to work correctly, you may need to define
|
|
|
|
operators.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
While operator overloading can make code more intuitive, it
|
|
|
|
has several drawbacks:
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> It can fool our intuition into thinking that expensive
|
|
|
|
operations are cheap, built-in operations.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> It is much harder to find the call sites for overloaded
|
|
|
|
operators. Searching for <code>Equals()</code> is much
|
|
|
|
easier than searching for relevant invocations of
|
|
|
|
<code>==</code>.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Some operators work on pointers too, making it easy to
|
|
|
|
introduce bugs. <code>Foo + 4</code> may do one thing,
|
|
|
|
while <code>&Foo + 4</code> does something totally
|
|
|
|
different. The compiler does not complain for either of
|
|
|
|
these, making this very hard to debug.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
Overloading also has surprising ramifications. For instance,
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
if a class overloads unary <code>operator&</code>, it
|
|
|
|
cannot safely be forward-declared.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
In general, do not overload operators. The assignment operator
|
|
|
|
(<code>operator=</code>), in particular, is insidious and
|
|
|
|
should be avoided. You can define functions like
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
<code>Equals()</code> and <code>CopyFrom()</code> if you
|
|
|
|
need them. Likewise, avoid the dangerous
|
|
|
|
unary <code>operator&</code> at all costs, if there's
|
|
|
|
any possibility the class might be forward-declared.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
However, there may be rare cases where you need to overload
|
|
|
|
an operator to interoperate with templates or "standard" C++
|
|
|
|
classes (such as <code>operator<<(ostream&, const
|
|
|
|
T&)</code> for logging). These are acceptable if fully
|
|
|
|
justified, but you should try to avoid these whenever
|
|
|
|
possible. In particular, do not overload <code>operator==</code>
|
|
|
|
or <code>operator<</code> just so that your class can be
|
|
|
|
used as a key in an STL container; instead, you should
|
|
|
|
create equality and comparison functor types when declaring
|
|
|
|
the container.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Some of the STL algorithms do require you to overload
|
|
|
|
<code>operator==</code>, and you may do so in these cases,
|
|
|
|
provided you document why.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
See also <a HREF="#Copy_Constructors">Copy Constructors</a>
|
|
|
|
and <a HREF="#Function_Overloading">Function
|
|
|
|
Overloading</a>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Access Control">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
2010-05-13 00:52:16 +08:00
|
|
|
Make data members <code>private</code>, and provide
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
access to them through accessor functions as needed (for
|
|
|
|
technical reasons, we allow data members of a test fixture class
|
|
|
|
to be <code>protected</code> when using
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<A HREF="http://code.google.com/p/googletest/">
|
|
|
|
Google Test</A>). Typically a variable would be
|
|
|
|
called <code>foo_</code> and the accessor function
|
|
|
|
<code>foo()</code>. You may also want a mutator function
|
|
|
|
<code>set_foo()</code>.
|
2010-05-13 00:52:16 +08:00
|
|
|
Exception: <code>static const</code> data members (typically
|
|
|
|
called <code>kFoo</code>) need not be <code>private</code>.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The definitions of accessors are usually inlined in the header
|
|
|
|
file.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
See also <a HREF="#Inheritance">Inheritance</a> and <a HREF="#Function_Names">Function Names</a>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Declaration Order">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use the specified order of declarations within a class:
|
|
|
|
<code>public:</code> before <code>private:</code>, methods
|
|
|
|
before data members (variables), etc.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Your class definition should start with its <code>public:</code>
|
|
|
|
section, followed by its <code>protected:</code> section and
|
|
|
|
then its <code>private:</code> section. If any of these sections
|
|
|
|
are empty, omit them.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Within each section, the declarations generally should be in
|
|
|
|
the following order:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> Typedefs and Enums</li>
|
2010-05-13 00:52:16 +08:00
|
|
|
<li> Constants (<code>static const</code> data members)</li>
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
<li> Constructors</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Destructor</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Methods, including static methods</li>
|
2010-05-13 00:52:16 +08:00
|
|
|
<li> Data Members (except <code>static const</code> data members)</li>
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2010-05-13 00:52:16 +08:00
|
|
|
Friend declarations should always be in the private section, and
|
|
|
|
the <code>DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN</code> macro invocation
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
should be at the end of the <code>private:</code> section. It
|
|
|
|
should be the last thing in the class. See <a HREF="#Copy_Constructors">Copy Constructors</a>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Method definitions in the corresponding <code>.cc</code> file
|
|
|
|
should be the same as the declaration order, as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Do not put large method definitions inline in the class
|
|
|
|
definition. Usually, only trivial or performance-critical,
|
|
|
|
and very short, methods may be defined inline. See <a HREF="#Inline_Functions">Inline Functions</a> for more
|
|
|
|
details.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Write Short Functions">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Prefer small and focused functions.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
We recognize that long functions are sometimes appropriate, so
|
|
|
|
no hard limit is placed on functions length. If a function
|
|
|
|
exceeds about 40 lines, think about whether it can be broken
|
|
|
|
up without harming the structure of the program.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Even if your long function works perfectly now, someone
|
|
|
|
modifying it in a few months may add new behavior. This could
|
|
|
|
result in bugs that are hard to find. Keeping your functions
|
|
|
|
short and simple makes it easier for other people to read and
|
|
|
|
modify your code.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
You could find long and complicated functions when working
|
|
|
|
with
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
some
|
|
|
|
code. Do not be intimidated by modifying existing
|
|
|
|
code: if working with such a function proves to be difficult,
|
|
|
|
you find that errors are hard to debug, or you want to use a
|
|
|
|
piece of it in several different contexts, consider breaking
|
|
|
|
up the function into smaller and more manageable pieces.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
</CATEGORY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CATEGORY title="Google-Specific Magic">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
There are various tricks and utilities that we use to make C++
|
|
|
|
code more robust, and various ways we use C++ that may differ from
|
|
|
|
what you see elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Smart Pointers">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
If you actually need pointer semantics, <code>scoped_ptr</code>
|
|
|
|
is great. You should only use <code>std::tr1::shared_ptr</code>
|
|
|
|
under very specific conditions, such as when objects need to be
|
|
|
|
held by STL containers. You should never use <code>auto_ptr</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
"Smart" pointers are objects that act like pointers but have
|
|
|
|
added semantics. When a <code>scoped_ptr</code> is
|
|
|
|
destroyed, for instance, it deletes the object it's pointing
|
|
|
|
to. <code>shared_ptr</code> is the same way, but implements
|
|
|
|
reference-counting so only the last pointer to an object
|
|
|
|
deletes it.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Generally speaking, we prefer that we design code with clear
|
|
|
|
object ownership. The clearest object ownership is obtained by
|
|
|
|
using an object directly as a field or local variable, without
|
|
|
|
using pointers at all. On the other extreme, by their very definition,
|
|
|
|
reference counted pointers are owned by nobody. The problem with
|
|
|
|
this design is that it is easy to create circular references or other
|
|
|
|
strange conditions that cause an object to never be deleted.
|
|
|
|
It is also slow to perform atomic operations every time a value is
|
|
|
|
copied or assigned.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Although they are not recommended, reference counted pointers are
|
|
|
|
sometimes the simplest and most elegant way to solve a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-14 05:41:00 +08:00
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="cpplint">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
Use
|
|
|
|
<code>cpplint.py</code>
|
|
|
|
to detect style errors.
|
2009-01-14 05:41:00 +08:00
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
<code>cpplint.py</code>
|
|
|
|
is a tool that reads a source file and
|
2009-01-14 05:41:00 +08:00
|
|
|
identifies many style errors. It is not perfect, and has both false
|
|
|
|
positives and false negatives, but it is still a valuable tool. False
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
positives can be ignored by putting <code>// NOLINT</code> at
|
|
|
|
the end of the line.
|
2009-01-14 05:41:00 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-14 05:41:00 +08:00
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Some projects have instructions on how to run <code>cpplint.py</code>
|
|
|
|
from their project tools. If the project you are contributing to does
|
|
|
|
not, you can download <A HREF="http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cpplint/cpplint.py"><code>cpplint.py</code></A> separately.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</CATEGORY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CATEGORY title="Other C++ Features">
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Reference Arguments">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
All parameters passed by reference must be labeled
|
|
|
|
<code>const</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
In C, if a function needs to modify a variable, the
|
|
|
|
parameter must use a pointer, eg <code>int foo(int
|
|
|
|
*pval)</code>. In C++, the function can alternatively
|
|
|
|
declare a reference parameter: <code>int foo(int
|
|
|
|
&val)</code>.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Defining a parameter as reference avoids ugly code like
|
|
|
|
<code>(*pval)++</code>. Necessary for some applications like
|
|
|
|
copy constructors. Makes it clear, unlike with pointers, that
|
|
|
|
<code>NULL</code> is not a possible value.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
References can be confusing, as they have value syntax but
|
|
|
|
pointer semantics.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Within function parameter lists all references must be
|
|
|
|
<code>const</code>:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
void Foo(const string &in, string *out);
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
In fact it is a very strong convention in Google code that input
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
arguments are values or <code>const</code> references while
|
|
|
|
output arguments are pointers. Input parameters may be
|
|
|
|
<code>const</code> pointers, but we never allow
|
|
|
|
non-<code>const</code> reference parameters.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
One case when you might want an input parameter to be a
|
|
|
|
<code>const</code> pointer is if you want to emphasize that the
|
|
|
|
argument is not copied, so it must exist for the lifetime of the
|
|
|
|
object; it is usually best to document this in comments as
|
|
|
|
well. STL adapters such as <code>bind2nd</code> and
|
|
|
|
<code>mem_fun</code> do not permit reference parameters, so
|
|
|
|
you must declare functions with pointer parameters in these
|
|
|
|
cases, too.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Function Overloading">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use overloaded functions (including constructors) only in cases
|
|
|
|
where input can be specified in different types that contain the
|
|
|
|
same information. Do not use function overloading to simulate
|
|
|
|
<A HREF="#Default_Arguments">default function parameters</A>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
You may write a function that takes a
|
|
|
|
<code>const string&</code> and overload it with another that
|
|
|
|
takes <code>const char*</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
class MyClass {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
void Analyze(const string &text);
|
|
|
|
void Analyze(const char *text, size_t textlen);
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Overloading can make code more intuitive by allowing an
|
|
|
|
identically-named function to take different arguments. It
|
|
|
|
may be necessary for templatized code, and it can be
|
|
|
|
convenient for Visitors.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
One reason to minimize function overloading is that
|
|
|
|
overloading can make it hard to tell which function is being
|
|
|
|
called at a particular call site. Another one is that most
|
|
|
|
people are confused by the semantics of inheritance if a
|
|
|
|
deriving class overrides only some of the variants of a
|
|
|
|
function. Moreover, reading client code of a library may
|
|
|
|
become unnecessarily hard because of all the reasons against
|
|
|
|
<A HREF="#Default_Arguments">default function parameters</A>.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
If you want to overload a function, consider qualifying the
|
|
|
|
name with some information about the arguments, e.g.,
|
|
|
|
<code>AppendString()</code>, <code>AppendInt()</code> rather
|
|
|
|
than just <code>Append()</code>.
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Default Arguments">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
2009-12-04 06:25:38 +08:00
|
|
|
We do not allow default function parameters, except in
|
|
|
|
a few uncommon situations explained below.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Often you have a function that uses lots of default values,
|
|
|
|
but occasionally you want to override the defaults. Default
|
|
|
|
parameters allow an easy way to do this without having to
|
|
|
|
define many functions for the rare exceptions.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
People often figure out how to use an
|
|
|
|
API by looking at existing code that uses it.
|
|
|
|
Default parameters are more difficult to maintain because
|
|
|
|
copy-and-paste from previous code may not reveal all the
|
|
|
|
parameters. Copy-and-pasting of code segments can cause major
|
|
|
|
problems when the default arguments are not appropriate for
|
|
|
|
the new code.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
2009-12-04 06:25:38 +08:00
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Except as described below, we require all arguments to be
|
|
|
|
explicitly specified, to force programmers to consider the API
|
|
|
|
and the values they are passing for each argument rather than
|
|
|
|
silently accepting defaults they may not be aware of.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
One specific exception is when default arguments are used to
|
|
|
|
simulate variable-length argument lists.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Support up to 4 params by using a default empty AlphaNum.
|
|
|
|
string StrCat(const AlphaNum &a,
|
|
|
|
const AlphaNum &b = gEmptyAlphaNum,
|
|
|
|
const AlphaNum &c = gEmptyAlphaNum,
|
|
|
|
const AlphaNum &d = gEmptyAlphaNum);
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Variable-Length Arrays and alloca()">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
We do not allow variable-length arrays or <code>alloca()</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Variable-length arrays have natural-looking syntax. Both
|
|
|
|
variable-length arrays and <code>alloca()</code> are very
|
|
|
|
efficient.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
Variable-length arrays and alloca are not part of Standard
|
|
|
|
C++. More importantly, they allocate a data-dependent amount
|
|
|
|
of stack space that can trigger difficult-to-find memory
|
|
|
|
overwriting bugs: "It ran fine on my machine, but dies
|
|
|
|
mysteriously in production".
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
Use a safe allocator instead, such as
|
|
|
|
<code>scoped_ptr</code>/<code>scoped_array</code>.
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Friends">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
We allow use of <code>friend</code> classes and functions,
|
|
|
|
within reason.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Friends should usually be defined in the same file so that the
|
|
|
|
reader does not have to look in another file to find uses of
|
|
|
|
the private members of a class. A common use of
|
|
|
|
<code>friend</code> is to have a <code>FooBuilder</code> class
|
|
|
|
be a friend of <code>Foo</code> so that it can construct the
|
|
|
|
inner state of <code>Foo</code> correctly, without exposing
|
|
|
|
this state to the world. In some cases it may be useful to
|
|
|
|
make a unittest class a friend of the class it tests.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Friends extend, but do not break, the encapsulation
|
|
|
|
boundary of a class. In some cases this is better than making
|
|
|
|
a member public when you want to give only one other class
|
|
|
|
access to it. However, most classes should interact with
|
|
|
|
other classes solely through their public members.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Exceptions">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
We do not use C++ exceptions.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li>Exceptions allow higher levels of an application to
|
|
|
|
decide how to handle "can't happen" failures in deeply
|
|
|
|
nested functions, without the obscuring and error-prone
|
|
|
|
bookkeeping of error codes.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li>Exceptions are used by most other modern
|
|
|
|
languages. Using them in C++ would make it more consistent with
|
|
|
|
Python, Java, and the C++ that others are familiar with.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li>Some third-party C++ libraries use exceptions, and turning
|
|
|
|
them off internally makes it harder to integrate with those
|
|
|
|
libraries.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li>Exceptions are the only way for a constructor to fail.
|
|
|
|
We can simulate this with a factory function or an
|
|
|
|
<code>Init()</code> method, but these require heap
|
|
|
|
allocation or a new "invalid" state, respectively.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li>Exceptions are really handy in testing frameworks.</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li>When you add a <code>throw</code> statement to an existing
|
|
|
|
function, you must examine all of its transitive callers. Either
|
|
|
|
they must make at least the basic exception safety guarantee, or
|
|
|
|
they must never catch the exception and be happy with the
|
|
|
|
program terminating as a result. For instance, if
|
|
|
|
<code>f()</code> calls <code>g()</code> calls
|
|
|
|
<code>h()</code>, and <code>h</code> throws an exception
|
|
|
|
that <code>f</code> catches, <code>g</code> has to be
|
|
|
|
careful or it may not clean up properly.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li>More generally, exceptions make the control flow of
|
|
|
|
programs difficult to evaluate by looking at code: functions
|
|
|
|
may return in places you don't expect. This results
|
|
|
|
maintainability and debugging difficulties. You can minimize
|
|
|
|
this cost via some rules on how and where exceptions can be
|
|
|
|
used, but at the cost of more that a developer needs to know
|
|
|
|
and understand.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li>Exception safety requires both RAII and different coding
|
|
|
|
practices. Lots of supporting machinery is needed to make
|
|
|
|
writing correct exception-safe code easy. Further, to avoid
|
|
|
|
requiring readers to understand the entire call graph,
|
|
|
|
exception-safe code must isolate logic that writes to
|
|
|
|
persistent state into a "commit" phase. This will have both
|
|
|
|
benefits and costs (perhaps where you're forced to obfuscate
|
|
|
|
code to isolate the commit). Allowing exceptions would force
|
|
|
|
us to always pay those costs even when they're not worth
|
|
|
|
it.</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li>Turning on exceptions adds data to each binary produced,
|
|
|
|
increasing compile time (probably slightly) and possibly
|
|
|
|
increasing address space pressure.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li>The availability of exceptions may encourage developers
|
|
|
|
to throw them when they are not appropriate or recover from
|
|
|
|
them when it's not safe to do so. For example, invalid user
|
|
|
|
input should not cause exceptions to be thrown. We would
|
|
|
|
need to make the style guide even longer to document these
|
|
|
|
restrictions!</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
On their face, the benefits of using exceptions outweigh the
|
|
|
|
costs, especially in new projects. However, for existing code,
|
|
|
|
the introduction of exceptions has implications on all dependent
|
|
|
|
code. If exceptions can be propagated beyond a new project, it
|
|
|
|
also becomes problematic to integrate the new project into
|
|
|
|
existing exception-free code. Because most existing C++ code at
|
|
|
|
Google is not prepared to deal with exceptions, it is
|
|
|
|
comparatively difficult to adopt new code that generates
|
|
|
|
exceptions.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Given that Google's existing code is not exception-tolerant, the
|
|
|
|
costs of using exceptions are somewhat greater than the costs in
|
|
|
|
in a new project. The conversion process would be slow and
|
|
|
|
error-prone. We don't believe that the available alternatives to
|
|
|
|
exceptions, such as error codes and assertions, introduce a
|
|
|
|
significant burden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Our advice against using exceptions is not predicated on
|
|
|
|
philosophical or moral grounds, but practical ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because we'd like to use our open-source
|
|
|
|
projects at Google and it's difficult to do so if those projects
|
|
|
|
use exceptions, we need to advise against exceptions in Google
|
|
|
|
open-source projects as well.
|
|
|
|
Things would probably be different if we had to do it all over
|
|
|
|
again from scratch.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
There is an <a HREF="#Windows_Code">exception</a> to this
|
|
|
|
rule (no pun intended) for Windows code.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Run-Time Type Information (RTTI)">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
We do not use Run Time Type Information (RTTI).
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
RTTI allows a programmer to query the C++ class of an
|
|
|
|
object at run time.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
It is useful in some unittests. For example, it is useful in
|
|
|
|
tests of factory classes where the test has to verify that a
|
|
|
|
newly created object has the expected dynamic type.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
In rare circumstances, it is useful even outside of
|
|
|
|
tests.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
A query of type during run-time typically means a
|
|
|
|
design problem. If you need to know the type of an
|
|
|
|
object at runtime, that is often an indication that
|
|
|
|
you should reconsider the design of your class.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Do not use RTTI, except in unittests. If you find yourself
|
|
|
|
in need of writing code that behaves differently based on
|
|
|
|
the class of an object, consider one of the alternatives to
|
|
|
|
querying the type.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Virtual methods are the preferred way of executing different
|
|
|
|
code paths depending on a specific subclass type. This puts
|
|
|
|
the work within the object itself.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If the work belongs outside the object and instead in some
|
|
|
|
processing code, consider a double-dispatch solution, such
|
|
|
|
as the Visitor design pattern. This allows a facility
|
|
|
|
outside the object itself to determine the type of class
|
|
|
|
using the built-in type system.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If you think you truly cannot use those ideas,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you may use RTTI. But think twice
|
|
|
|
about it. :-) Then think twice again.
|
|
|
|
Do not hand-implement an RTTI-like workaround. The arguments
|
|
|
|
against RTTI apply just as much to workarounds like class
|
|
|
|
hierarchies with type tags.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Casting">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use C++ casts like <code>static_cast<>()</code>. Do not use
|
|
|
|
other cast formats like <code>int y = (int)x;</code> or
|
|
|
|
<code>int y = int(x);</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
C++ introduced a different cast system from C that
|
|
|
|
distinguishes the types of cast operations.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
The problem with C casts is the ambiguity of the operation;
|
|
|
|
sometimes you are doing a <em>conversion</em> (e.g.,
|
|
|
|
<code>(int)3.5</code>) and sometimes you are doing a
|
|
|
|
<em>cast</em> (e.g., <code>(int)"hello"</code>); C++ casts
|
|
|
|
avoid this. Additionally C++ casts are more visible when
|
|
|
|
searching for them.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
The syntax is nasty.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Do not use C-style casts. Instead, use these C++-style
|
|
|
|
casts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li> Use <code>static_cast</code> as the equivalent of a
|
|
|
|
C-style cast that does value conversion, or when you need to explicitly up-cast
|
|
|
|
a pointer from a class to its superclass.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Use <code>const_cast</code> to remove the <code>const</code>
|
|
|
|
qualifier (see <a HREF="#Use_of_const">const</a>).
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li> Use <code>reinterpret_cast</code> to do unsafe
|
|
|
|
conversions of pointer types to and from integer and
|
|
|
|
other pointer types. Use this only if you know what you are
|
|
|
|
doing and you understand the aliasing issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Do not use <code>dynamic_cast</code> except in test code.
|
|
|
|
If you need to know type information at runtime in this way
|
|
|
|
outside of a unittest, you probably have a <A HREF="#Run-Time_Type_Information__RTTI_">design
|
|
|
|
flaw</A>.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Streams">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use streams only for logging.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
Streams are a replacement for <code>printf()</code> and
|
|
|
|
<code>scanf()</code>.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
With streams, you do not need to know the type of the object
|
|
|
|
you are printing. You do not have problems with format
|
|
|
|
strings not matching the argument list. (Though with gcc, you
|
|
|
|
do not have that problem with <code>printf</code> either.) Streams
|
|
|
|
have automatic constructors and destructors that open and close the
|
|
|
|
relevant files.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
Streams make it difficult to do functionality like
|
|
|
|
<code>pread()</code>. Some formatting (particularly the common
|
|
|
|
format string idiom <code>%.*s</code>) is difficult if not
|
|
|
|
impossible to do efficiently using streams without using
|
|
|
|
<code>printf</code>-like hacks. Streams do not support operator
|
|
|
|
reordering (the <code>%1s</code> directive), which is helpful for
|
|
|
|
internationalization.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Do not use streams, except where required by a logging interface.
|
|
|
|
Use <code>printf</code>-like routines instead.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
There are various pros and cons to using streams, but in
|
|
|
|
this case, as in many other cases, consistency trumps the
|
|
|
|
debate. Do not use streams in your code.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Extended Discussion">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
There has been debate on this issue, so this explains the
|
|
|
|
reasoning in greater depth. Recall the Only One Way
|
|
|
|
guiding principle: we want to make sure that whenever we
|
|
|
|
do a certain type of I/O, the code looks the same in all
|
|
|
|
those places. Because of this, we do not want to allow
|
|
|
|
users to decide between using streams or using
|
|
|
|
<code>printf</code> plus Read/Write/etc. Instead, we should
|
|
|
|
settle on one or the other. We made an exception for logging
|
|
|
|
because it is a pretty specialized application, and for
|
|
|
|
historical reasons.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Proponents of streams have argued that streams are the obvious
|
|
|
|
choice of the two, but the issue is not actually so clear. For
|
|
|
|
every advantage of streams they point out, there is an
|
|
|
|
equivalent disadvantage. The biggest advantage is that
|
|
|
|
you do not need to know the type of the object to be
|
|
|
|
printing. This is a fair point. But, there is a
|
|
|
|
downside: you can easily use the wrong type, and the
|
|
|
|
compiler will not warn you. It is easy to make this
|
|
|
|
kind of mistake without knowing when using streams.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
cout << this; // Prints the address
|
|
|
|
cout << *this; // Prints the contents
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The compiler does not generate an error because
|
|
|
|
<code><<</code> has been overloaded. We discourage
|
|
|
|
overloading for just this reason.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Some say <code>printf</code> formatting is ugly and hard to
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
read, but streams are often no better. Consider the following
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
two fragments, both with the same typo. Which is easier to
|
|
|
|
discover?
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
cerr << "Error connecting to '" << foo->bar()->hostname.first
|
|
|
|
<< ":" << foo->bar()->hostname.second << ": " << strerror(errno);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fprintf(stderr, "Error connecting to '%s:%u: %s",
|
|
|
|
foo->bar()->hostname.first, foo->bar()->hostname.second,
|
|
|
|
strerror(errno));
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
And so on and so forth for any issue you might bring up.
|
|
|
|
(You could argue, "Things would be better with the right
|
|
|
|
wrappers," but if it is true for one scheme, is it not
|
|
|
|
also true for the other? Also, remember the goal is to
|
|
|
|
make the language smaller, not add yet more machinery that
|
|
|
|
someone has to learn.)
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Either path would yield different advantages and
|
|
|
|
disadvantages, and there is not a clearly superior
|
|
|
|
solution. The simplicity doctrine mandates we settle on
|
|
|
|
one of them though, and the majority decision was on
|
|
|
|
<code>printf</code> + <code>read</code>/<code>write</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Preincrement and Predecrement">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use prefix form (<code>++i</code>) of the increment and
|
|
|
|
decrement operators with iterators and other template objects.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
When a variable is incremented (<code>++i</code> or
|
|
|
|
<code>i++</code>) or decremented (<code>--i</code> or
|
|
|
|
<code>i--</code>) and the value of the expression is not used,
|
|
|
|
one must decide whether to preincrement (decrement) or
|
|
|
|
postincrement (decrement).
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
When the return value is ignored, the "pre" form
|
|
|
|
(<code>++i</code>) is never less efficient than the "post"
|
|
|
|
form (<code>i++</code>), and is often more efficient. This is
|
|
|
|
because post-increment (or decrement) requires a copy of
|
|
|
|
<code>i</code> to be made, which is the value of the
|
|
|
|
expression. If <code>i</code> is an iterator or other
|
|
|
|
non-scalar type, copying <code>i</code> could be expensive.
|
|
|
|
Since the two types of increment behave the same when the
|
|
|
|
value is ignored, why not just always pre-increment?
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
The tradition developed, in C, of using post-increment when
|
|
|
|
the expression value is not used, especially in <code>for</code>
|
|
|
|
loops. Some find post-increment easier to read, since the
|
|
|
|
"subject" (<code>i</code>) precedes the "verb" (<code>++</code>),
|
|
|
|
just like in English.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
For simple scalar (non-object) values there is no reason to
|
|
|
|
prefer one form and we allow either. For iterators and other
|
|
|
|
template types, use pre-increment.
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Use of const">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
We strongly recommend that you use <code>const</code> whenever
|
|
|
|
it makes sense to do so.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
Declared variables and parameters can be preceded by the
|
|
|
|
keyword <code>const</code> to indicate the variables are not
|
|
|
|
changed (e.g., <code>const int foo</code>). Class functions
|
|
|
|
can have the <code>const</code> qualifier to indicate the
|
|
|
|
function does not change the state of the class member
|
|
|
|
variables (e.g., <code>class Foo { int Bar(char c) const;
|
|
|
|
};</code>).
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Easier for people to understand how variables are being used.
|
|
|
|
Allows the compiler to do better type checking, and,
|
|
|
|
conceivably, generate better code. Helps people convince
|
|
|
|
themselves of program correctness because they know the
|
|
|
|
functions they call are limited in how they can modify your
|
|
|
|
variables. Helps people know what functions are safe to use
|
|
|
|
without locks in multi-threaded programs.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
<code>const</code> is viral: if you pass a <code>const</code>
|
|
|
|
variable to a function, that function must have <code>const</code>
|
|
|
|
in its prototype (or the variable will need a
|
|
|
|
<code>const_cast</code>). This can be a particular problem
|
|
|
|
when calling library functions.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<code>const</code> variables, data members, methods and
|
|
|
|
arguments add a level of compile-time type checking; it
|
|
|
|
is better to detect errors as soon as possible.
|
|
|
|
Therefore we strongly recommend that you use
|
|
|
|
<code>const</code> whenever it makes sense to do so:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> If a function does not modify an argument passed by
|
|
|
|
reference or by pointer, that argument should be
|
|
|
|
<code>const</code>.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Declare methods to be <code>const</code> whenever
|
|
|
|
possible. Accessors should almost always be
|
|
|
|
<code>const</code>. Other methods should be const if they do
|
|
|
|
not modify any data members, do not call any
|
|
|
|
non-<code>const</code> methods, and do not return a
|
|
|
|
non-<code>const</code> pointer or non-<code>const</code>
|
|
|
|
reference to a data member.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Consider making data members <code>const</code>
|
|
|
|
whenever they do not need to be modified after
|
|
|
|
construction.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
However, do not go crazy with <code>const</code>. Something like
|
|
|
|
<code>const int * const * const x;</code> is likely
|
|
|
|
overkill, even if it accurately describes how const x is.
|
|
|
|
Focus on what's really useful to know: in this case,
|
|
|
|
<code>const int** x</code> is probably sufficient.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The <code>mutable</code> keyword is allowed but is unsafe
|
|
|
|
when used with threads, so thread safety should be carefully
|
|
|
|
considered first.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Where to put the const">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Some people favor the form <code>int const *foo</code> to
|
|
|
|
<code>const int* foo</code>. They argue that this is more
|
|
|
|
readable because it's more consistent: it keeps the rule
|
|
|
|
that <code>const</code> always follows the object it's
|
|
|
|
describing. However, this consistency argument doesn't
|
|
|
|
apply in this case, because the "don't go crazy" dictum
|
|
|
|
eliminates most of the uses you'd have to be consistent with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Putting the <code>const</code> first is arguably more readable,
|
|
|
|
since it follows English in putting the "adjective"
|
|
|
|
(<code>const</code>) before the "noun" (<code>int</code>).
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
That said, while we encourage putting <code>const</code> first,
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
we do not require it. But be consistent with the code around
|
|
|
|
you!
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Integer Types">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Of the built-in C++ integer types, the only one used
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is <code>int</code>. If a program needs a variable of a different
|
|
|
|
size, use
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a precise-width integer type from
|
|
|
|
<code><stdint.h></code>, such as <code>int16_t</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
C++ does not specify the sizes of its integer types. Typically
|
|
|
|
people assume that <code>short</code> is 16 bits,
|
|
|
|
<code>int</code> is 32 bits, <code>long</code> is 32 bits and
|
|
|
|
<code>long long</code> is 64 bits.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Uniformity of declaration.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
The sizes of integral types in C++ can vary based on compiler
|
|
|
|
and architecture.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<code><stdint.h></code> defines
|
|
|
|
types like <code>int16_t</code>, <code>uint32_t</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>int64_t</code>, etc.
|
|
|
|
You should always use those in preference to
|
|
|
|
<code>short</code>, <code>unsigned long long</code> and the
|
|
|
|
like, when you need a guarantee on the size of an integer.
|
|
|
|
Of the C integer types, only <code>int</code> should be
|
|
|
|
used. When appropriate, you are welcome to use standard
|
|
|
|
types like <code>size_t</code> and <code>ptrdiff_t</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
We use <code>int</code> very often, for integers we know are not
|
|
|
|
going to be too big, e.g., loop counters. Use plain old
|
|
|
|
<code>int</code> for such things. You should assume that an
|
|
|
|
<code>int</code> is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
at least 32 bits,
|
|
|
|
but don't assume that it has more than 32 bits.
|
|
|
|
If you need a 64-bit integer type, use
|
|
|
|
<code>int64_t</code> or
|
|
|
|
<code>uint64_t</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
For integers we know can be "big",
|
|
|
|
use
|
|
|
|
<code>int64_t</code>.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
You should not use the unsigned integer types such as
|
|
|
|
<code>uint32_t</code>,
|
|
|
|
unless the quantity you are representing is really a bit pattern
|
2008-12-18 06:24:29 +08:00
|
|
|
rather than a number, or unless you need defined
|
|
|
|
twos-complement overflow. In particular, do not use unsigned
|
|
|
|
types to say a number will never be negative. Instead, use
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assertions for this.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="On Unsigned Integers">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Some people, including some textbook authors, recommend
|
|
|
|
using unsigned types to represent numbers that are never
|
|
|
|
negative. This is intended as a form of self-documentation.
|
|
|
|
However, in C, the advantages of such documentation are
|
|
|
|
outweighed by the real bugs it can introduce. Consider:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
for (unsigned int i = foo.Length()-1; i >= 0; --i) ...
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
This code will never terminate! Sometimes gcc will notice
|
|
|
|
this bug and warn you, but often it will not. Equally bad
|
|
|
|
bugs can occur when comparing signed and unsigned
|
|
|
|
variables. Basically, C's type-promotion scheme causes
|
|
|
|
unsigned types to behave differently than one might expect.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
So, document that a variable is non-negative using
|
|
|
|
assertions.
|
|
|
|
Don't use an unsigned type.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="64-bit Portability">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Code should be 64-bit and 32-bit friendly. Bear in mind problems of
|
|
|
|
printing, comparisons, and structure alignment.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<code>printf()</code> specifiers for some types are
|
|
|
|
not cleanly portable between 32-bit and 64-bit
|
|
|
|
systems. C99 defines some portable format
|
|
|
|
specifiers. Unfortunately, MSVC 7.1 does not
|
|
|
|
understand some of these specifiers and the
|
|
|
|
standard is missing a few, so we have to define our
|
|
|
|
own ugly versions in some cases (in the style of the
|
|
|
|
standard include file <code>inttypes.h</code>):
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// printf macros for size_t, in the style of inttypes.h
|
|
|
|
#ifdef _LP64
|
|
|
|
#define __PRIS_PREFIX "z"
|
|
|
|
#else
|
|
|
|
#define __PRIS_PREFIX
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Use these macros after a % in a printf format string
|
|
|
|
// to get correct 32/64 bit behavior, like this:
|
|
|
|
// size_t size = records.size();
|
|
|
|
// printf("%"PRIuS"\n", size);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define PRIdS __PRIS_PREFIX "d"
|
|
|
|
#define PRIxS __PRIS_PREFIX "x"
|
|
|
|
#define PRIuS __PRIS_PREFIX "u"
|
|
|
|
#define PRIXS __PRIS_PREFIX "X"
|
|
|
|
#define PRIoS __PRIS_PREFIX "o"
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<table border="1" summary="portable printf specifiers">
|
|
|
|
<TBODY>
|
|
|
|
<tr align="center">
|
|
|
|
<th>Type</th>
|
|
|
|
<th>DO NOT use</th>
|
|
|
|
<th>DO use</th>
|
|
|
|
<th>Notes</th>
|
|
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
<tr align="center">
|
|
|
|
<td><code>void *</code> (or any pointer)</td>
|
|
|
|
<td><code>%lx</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td><code>%p</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<tr align="center">
|
|
|
|
<td><code>int64_t</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td><code>%qd</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>%lld</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td><code>%"PRId64"</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td/>
|
|
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<tr align="center">
|
|
|
|
<td><code>uint64_t</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td><code>%qu</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>%llu</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>%llx</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td><code>%"PRIu64"</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>%"PRIx64"</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td/>
|
|
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<tr align="center">
|
|
|
|
<td><code>size_t</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td><code>%u</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td><code>%"PRIuS"</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>%"PRIxS"</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td>C99 specifies <code>%zu</code></td>
|
|
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
<tr align="center">
|
|
|
|
<td><code>ptrdiff_t</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td><code>%d</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td><code>%"PRIdS"</code></td>
|
|
|
|
<td>C99 specifies <code>%zd</code></td>
|
|
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</TBODY>
|
|
|
|
</table>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Note that the <code>PRI*</code> macros expand to independent
|
|
|
|
strings which are concatenated by the compiler. Hence
|
|
|
|
if you are using a non-constant format string, you
|
|
|
|
need to insert the value of the macro into the format,
|
|
|
|
rather than the name. It is still possible, as usual,
|
|
|
|
to include length specifiers, etc., after the
|
|
|
|
<code>%</code> when using the <code>PRI*</code>
|
|
|
|
macros. So, e.g. <code>printf("x = %30"PRIuS"\n",
|
|
|
|
x)</code> would expand on 32-bit Linux to
|
|
|
|
<code>printf("x = %30" "u" "\n", x)</code>, which the
|
|
|
|
compiler will treat as <code>printf("x = %30u\n",
|
|
|
|
x)</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li> Remember that <code>sizeof(void *)</code> !=
|
|
|
|
<code>sizeof(int)</code>. Use <code>intptr_t</code> if
|
|
|
|
you want a pointer-sized integer.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li> You may need to be careful with structure alignments,
|
|
|
|
particularly for structures being stored on disk. Any
|
|
|
|
class/structure with a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<code>int64_t</code>/<code>uint64_t</code>
|
|
|
|
member will by default end up being 8-byte aligned on a 64-bit
|
|
|
|
system. If you have such structures being shared on disk
|
|
|
|
between 32-bit and 64-bit code, you will need to ensure
|
|
|
|
that they are packed the same on both architectures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most compilers offer a way to alter
|
|
|
|
structure alignment. For gcc, you can use
|
|
|
|
<code>__attribute__((packed))</code>. MSVC offers
|
|
|
|
<code>#pragma pack()</code> and
|
|
|
|
<code>__declspec(align())</code>.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use the <code>LL</code> or <code>ULL</code> suffixes as
|
|
|
|
needed to create 64-bit constants. For example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
int64_t my_value = 0x123456789LL;
|
|
|
|
uint64_t my_mask = 3ULL << 48;
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<li> If you really need different code on 32-bit and 64-bit
|
|
|
|
systems, use <code>#ifdef _LP64</code> to choose between
|
|
|
|
the code variants. (But please avoid this if
|
|
|
|
possible, and keep any such changes localized.)
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Preprocessor Macros">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Be very cautious with macros. Prefer inline functions, enums,
|
|
|
|
and <code>const</code> variables to macros.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Macros mean that the code you see is not the same as the code
|
|
|
|
the compiler sees. This can introduce unexpected behavior,
|
|
|
|
especially since macros have global scope.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Luckily, macros are not nearly as necessary in C++ as they are
|
|
|
|
in C. Instead of using a macro to inline performance-critical
|
|
|
|
code, use an inline function. Instead of using a macro to
|
|
|
|
store a constant, use a <code>const</code> variable. Instead of
|
|
|
|
using a macro to "abbreviate" a long variable name, use a
|
|
|
|
reference. Instead of using a macro to conditionally compile code
|
|
|
|
... well, don't do that at all (except, of course, for the
|
|
|
|
<code>#define</code> guards to prevent double inclusion of
|
|
|
|
header files). It makes testing much more difficult.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Macros can do things these other techniques cannot, and you do
|
|
|
|
see them in the codebase, especially in the lower-level
|
|
|
|
libraries. And some of their special features (like
|
|
|
|
stringifying, concatenation, and so forth) are not available
|
|
|
|
through the language proper. But before using a macro,
|
|
|
|
consider carefully whether there's a non-macro way to achieve
|
|
|
|
the same result.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The following usage pattern will avoid many problems with
|
|
|
|
macros; if you use macros, follow it whenever possible:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> Don't define macros in a <code>.h</code> file.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> <code>#define</code> macros right before you use them,
|
|
|
|
and <code>#undef</code> them right after.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Do not just <code>#undef</code> an existing macro before
|
|
|
|
replacing it with your own; instead, pick a name that's
|
|
|
|
likely to be unique.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Try not to use macros that expand to unbalanced C++
|
|
|
|
constructs, or at least document that behavior well.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
2009-12-04 06:25:38 +08:00
|
|
|
<li> Prefer not using <code>##</code> to generate function/class/variable
|
|
|
|
names.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="0 and NULL">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use <code>0</code> for integers, <code>0.0</code> for reals,
|
|
|
|
<code>NULL</code> for pointers, and <code>'\0'</code> for chars.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Use <code>0</code> for integers and <code>0.0</code> for reals.
|
|
|
|
This is not controversial.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
For pointers (address values), there is a choice between <code>0</code>
|
|
|
|
and <code>NULL</code>. Bjarne Stroustrup prefers an unadorned
|
|
|
|
<code>0</code>. We prefer <code>NULL</code> because it looks like a
|
|
|
|
pointer. In fact, some C++ compilers, such as gcc 4.1.0, provide special
|
|
|
|
definitions of <code>NULL</code> which enable them to give useful
|
|
|
|
warnings, particularly in situations where <code>sizeof(NULL)</code>
|
|
|
|
is not equal to <code>sizeof(0)</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Use <code>'\0'</code> for chars.
|
|
|
|
This is the correct type and also makes code more readable.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="sizeof">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use <code>sizeof(<var>varname</var>)</code> instead of
|
|
|
|
<code>sizeof(<var>type</var>)</code> whenever possible.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Use <code>sizeof(<var>varname</var>)</code> because it will update
|
|
|
|
appropriately if the type of the variable changes.
|
|
|
|
<code>sizeof(<var>type</var>)</code> may make sense in some cases,
|
|
|
|
but should generally be avoided because it can fall out of sync if
|
|
|
|
the variable's type changes.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
Struct data;
|
|
|
|
memset(&data, 0, sizeof(data));
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
memset(&data, 0, sizeof(Struct));
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Boost">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use only approved libraries from the Boost library collection.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
The <a href="http://www.boost.org/">Boost library collection</a> is
|
|
|
|
a popular collection of peer-reviewed, free, open-source C++ libraries.
|
|
|
|
</DEFINITION>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Boost code is generally very high-quality, is widely portable, and fills
|
|
|
|
many important gaps in the C++ standard library, such as type traits,
|
|
|
|
better binders, and better smart pointers. It also provides an
|
|
|
|
implementation of the TR1 extension to the standard library.
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
Some Boost libraries encourage coding practices which can hamper
|
|
|
|
readability, such as metaprogramming and other advanced template
|
|
|
|
techniques, and an excessively "functional" style of programming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to maintain a high level of readability for all contributors
|
|
|
|
who might read and maintain code, we only allow an approved subset of
|
2008-07-02 00:28:01 +08:00
|
|
|
Boost features. Currently, the following libraries are permitted:
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
2009-12-04 06:25:38 +08:00
|
|
|
<li> <a href="http://www.boost.org/libs/utility/call_traits.htm">
|
|
|
|
Call Traits</a> from <code>boost/call_traits.hpp</code>
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
2008-07-02 00:28:01 +08:00
|
|
|
<li> <a href="http://www.boost.org/libs/utility/compressed_pair.htm">
|
|
|
|
Compressed Pair</a> from <code>boost/compressed_pair.hpp</code>
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> <a href="http://www.boost.org/libs/ptr_container/">
|
2008-09-05 02:34:20 +08:00
|
|
|
Pointer Container</a> from <code>boost/ptr_container</code> except serialization
|
2008-07-02 00:28:01 +08:00
|
|
|
</li>
|
2008-09-05 02:34:20 +08:00
|
|
|
<li> <a href="http://www.boost.org/libs/array/">
|
|
|
|
Array</a> from <code>boost/array.hpp</code>
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> <a href="http://www.boost.org/libs/graph/">
|
|
|
|
The Boost Graph Library (BGL)</a> from <code>boost/graph</code> except serialization
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> <a href="http://www.boost.org/libs/property_map/">
|
|
|
|
Property Map</a> from <code>boost/property_map.hpp</code>
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> The part of
|
|
|
|
<a href="http://www.boost.org/libs/iterator/">
|
|
|
|
Iterator</a> that deals with defining iterators:
|
|
|
|
<code>boost/iterator/iterator_adaptor.hpp</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>boost/iterator/iterator_facade.hpp</code>, and
|
|
|
|
<code>boost/function_output_iterator.hpp</code></li>
|
2008-07-02 00:28:01 +08:00
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
We are actively considering adding other Boost features to the list, so
|
|
|
|
this rule may be relaxed in the future.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</CATEGORY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CATEGORY title="Naming">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The most important consistency rules are those that govern
|
|
|
|
naming. The style of a name immediately informs us what sort of
|
|
|
|
thing the named entity is: a type, a variable, a function, a
|
|
|
|
constant, a macro, etc., without requiring us to search for the
|
|
|
|
declaration of that entity. The pattern-matching engine in our
|
|
|
|
brains relies a great deal on these naming rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Naming rules are pretty arbitrary, but
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we feel that consistency is more important than individual preferences
|
|
|
|
in this area, so regardless of whether you find them sensible or not,
|
|
|
|
the rules are the rules.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="General Naming Rules">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Function names, variable names, and filenames should be
|
|
|
|
descriptive; eschew abbreviation. Types and variables should be
|
|
|
|
nouns, while functions should be "command" verbs.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="How to Name">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Give as descriptive a name as possible, within reason. Do
|
|
|
|
not worry about saving horizontal space as it is far more
|
|
|
|
important to make your code immediately understandable by a
|
|
|
|
new reader. Examples of well-chosen names:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
int num_errors; // Good.
|
|
|
|
int num_completed_connections; // Good.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Poorly-chosen names use ambiguous abbreviations or arbitrary
|
|
|
|
characters that do not convey meaning:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
int n; // Bad - meaningless.
|
|
|
|
int nerr; // Bad - ambiguous abbreviation.
|
|
|
|
int n_comp_conns; // Bad - ambiguous abbreviation.
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Type and variable names should typically be nouns: e.g.,
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
<code>FileOpener</code>,
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<code>num_errors</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Function names should typically be imperative (that is they
|
|
|
|
should be commands): e.g., <code>OpenFile()</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>set_num_errors()</code>. There is an exception for
|
|
|
|
accessors, which, described more completely in <a HREF="#Function_Names">Function Names</a>, should be named
|
|
|
|
the same as the variable they access.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Abbreviations">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Do not use abbreviations unless they are extremely well
|
|
|
|
known outside your project. For example:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Good
|
|
|
|
// These show proper names with no abbreviations.
|
|
|
|
int num_dns_connections; // Most people know what "DNS" stands for.
|
|
|
|
int price_count_reader; // OK, price count. Makes sense.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Bad!
|
|
|
|
// Abbreviations can be confusing or ambiguous outside a small group.
|
|
|
|
int wgc_connections; // Only your group knows what this stands for.
|
|
|
|
int pc_reader; // Lots of things can be abbreviated "pc".
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Never abbreviate by leaving out letters:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
int error_count; // Good.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
int error_cnt; // Bad.
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="File Names">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Filenames should be all lowercase and can include underscores
|
|
|
|
(<code>_</code>) or dashes (<code>-</code>). Follow the
|
|
|
|
convention that your
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
project
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
uses. If there is no consistent local pattern to follow, prefer "_".
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Examples of acceptable file names:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<code>
|
|
|
|
my_useful_class.cc<br/>
|
|
|
|
my-useful-class.cc<br/>
|
|
|
|
myusefulclass.cc<br/>
|
|
|
|
</code>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
C++ files should end in <code>.cc</code> and header files
|
|
|
|
should end in <code>.h</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Do not use filenames that already exist
|
|
|
|
in <code>/usr/include</code>, such as <code>db.h</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
In general, make your filenames very specific. For example,
|
|
|
|
use <code>http_server_logs.h</code> rather
|
|
|
|
than <code>logs.h</code>. A very common case is to have a
|
|
|
|
pair of files called, e.g., <code>foo_bar.h</code>
|
|
|
|
and <code>foo_bar.cc</code>, defining a class
|
|
|
|
called <code>FooBar</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Inline functions must be in a <code>.h</code> file. If your
|
|
|
|
inline functions are very short, they should go directly into your
|
|
|
|
<code>.h</code> file. However, if your inline functions
|
|
|
|
include a lot of code, they may go into a third file that
|
|
|
|
ends in <code>-inl.h</code>. In a class with a lot of inline
|
|
|
|
code, your class could have three files:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
url_table.h // The class declaration.
|
|
|
|
url_table.cc // The class definition.
|
|
|
|
url_table-inl.h // Inline functions that include lots of code.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
See also the section <a href="#The_-inl.h_Files">-inl.h Files</a>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Type Names">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Type names start with a capital letter and have a capital
|
|
|
|
letter for each new word, with no underscores:
|
|
|
|
<code>MyExcitingClass</code>, <code>MyExcitingEnum</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The names of all types — classes, structs, typedefs, and enums
|
|
|
|
— have the same naming convention. Type names should start
|
|
|
|
with a capital letter and have a capital letter for each new
|
|
|
|
word. No underscores. For example:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// classes and structs
|
|
|
|
class UrlTable { ...
|
|
|
|
class UrlTableTester { ...
|
|
|
|
struct UrlTableProperties { ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// typedefs
|
|
|
|
typedef hash_map<UrlTableProperties *, string> PropertiesMap;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// enums
|
|
|
|
enum UrlTableErrors { ...
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Variable Names">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Variable names are all lowercase, with underscores between
|
|
|
|
words. Class member variables have trailing underscores. For
|
|
|
|
instance: <code>my_exciting_local_variable</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>my_exciting_member_variable_</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Common Variable names">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
For example:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
string table_name; // OK - uses underscore.
|
|
|
|
string tablename; // OK - all lowercase.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
string tableName; // Bad - mixed case.
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Class Data Members">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Data members (also called instance variables or member
|
|
|
|
variables) are lowercase with optional underscores like
|
|
|
|
regular variable names, but always end with a trailing
|
|
|
|
underscore.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
string table_name_; // OK - underscore at end.
|
|
|
|
string tablename_; // OK.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Struct Variables">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Data members in structs should be named like regular
|
|
|
|
variables without the trailing underscores that data members
|
|
|
|
in classes have.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
struct UrlTableProperties {
|
|
|
|
string name;
|
|
|
|
int num_entries;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
See <a HREF="#Structs_vs._Classes">Structs vs. Classes</a> for a
|
|
|
|
discussion of when to use a struct versus a class.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Global Variables">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
There are no special requirements for global variables,
|
|
|
|
which should be rare in any case, but if you use one,
|
|
|
|
consider prefixing it with <code>g_</code> or some other
|
|
|
|
marker to easily distinguish it from local variables.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Constant Names">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use a <code>k</code> followed by mixed case:
|
|
|
|
<code>kDaysInAWeek</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
All compile-time constants, whether they are declared locally,
|
|
|
|
globally, or as part of a class, follow a slightly different
|
|
|
|
naming convention from other variables. Use a <code>k</code>
|
|
|
|
followed by words with uppercase first letters:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
const int kDaysInAWeek = 7;
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Function Names">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Regular functions have mixed case; accessors and mutators match
|
|
|
|
the name of the variable: <code>MyExcitingFunction()</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>MyExcitingMethod()</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>my_exciting_member_variable()</code>,
|
|
|
|
<code>set_my_exciting_member_variable()</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Regular Functions">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Functions should start with a capital letter and have a
|
2010-05-13 00:52:16 +08:00
|
|
|
capital letter for each new word. No underscores.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If your function crashes upon an error, you should append OrDie to
|
|
|
|
the function name. This only applies to functions which could be
|
|
|
|
used by production code and to errors that are reasonably
|
|
|
|
likely to occur during normal operation.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
AddTableEntry()
|
|
|
|
DeleteUrl()
|
2010-05-13 00:52:16 +08:00
|
|
|
OpenFileOrDie()
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Accessors and Mutators">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Accessors and mutators (get and set functions) should match
|
|
|
|
the name of the variable they are getting and setting. This
|
|
|
|
shows an excerpt of a class whose instance variable is
|
|
|
|
<code>num_entries_</code>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
class MyClass {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
int num_entries() const { return num_entries_; }
|
|
|
|
void set_num_entries(int num_entries) { num_entries_ = num_entries; }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
int num_entries_;
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
You may also use lowercase letters for other very short
|
|
|
|
inlined functions. For example if a function were so cheap
|
|
|
|
you would not cache the value if you were calling it in a
|
|
|
|
loop, then lowercase naming would be acceptable.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Namespace Names">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Namespace names are all lower-case, and based on project names and
|
|
|
|
possibly their directory structure:
|
|
|
|
<code>google_awesome_project</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
See <a HREF="#Namespaces">Namespaces</a> for a discussion of
|
|
|
|
namespaces and how to name them.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Enumerator Names">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
Enumerators should be named <i>either</i> like
|
|
|
|
<A HREF="#Constant_Names">constants</A> or like
|
|
|
|
<A HREF="#Macro_Names">macros</A>: either <code>kEnumName</code>
|
|
|
|
or <code>ENUM_NAME</code>.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
Preferably, the individual enumerators should be named like
|
|
|
|
<A HREF="#Constant_Names">constants</A>. However, it is also
|
|
|
|
acceptable to name them like <A HREF="#Macro_Names">macros</A>. The enumeration name,
|
|
|
|
<code>UrlTableErrors</code> (and
|
|
|
|
<code>AlternateUrlTableErrors</code>), is a type, and
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
therefore mixed case.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
enum UrlTableErrors {
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
kOK = 0,
|
|
|
|
kErrorOutOfMemory,
|
|
|
|
kErrorMalformedInput,
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
enum AlternateUrlTableErrors {
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
OK = 0,
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
OUT_OF_MEMORY = 1,
|
|
|
|
MALFORMED_INPUT = 2,
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
2009-03-26 06:24:14 +08:00
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Until January 2009, the style was to name enum values like
|
|
|
|
<A HREF="#Macro_Names">macros</A>. This caused problems with
|
|
|
|
name collisions between enum values and macros. Hence, the
|
|
|
|
change to prefer constant-style naming was put in place. New
|
|
|
|
code should prefer constant-style naming if possible.
|
|
|
|
However, there is no reason to change old code to use
|
|
|
|
constant-style names, unless the old names are actually
|
|
|
|
causing a compile-time problem.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Macro Names">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
You're not really going to <A HREF="#Preprocessor_Macros">define
|
|
|
|
a macro</A>, are you? If you do, they're like this:
|
|
|
|
<code>MY_MACRO_THAT_SCARES_SMALL_CHILDREN</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Please see the <a href="#Preprocessor_Macros">description of
|
|
|
|
macros</a>; in general macros should <em>not</em> be used.
|
|
|
|
However, if they are absolutely needed, then they should be
|
|
|
|
named like enum value names with all capitals and underscores.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
#define ROUND(x) ...
|
|
|
|
#define PI_ROUNDED 3.0
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Exceptions to Naming Rules">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
If you are naming something that is analogous to an existing C
|
|
|
|
or C++ entity then you can follow the existing naming convention
|
|
|
|
scheme.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<dl>
|
|
|
|
<dt> <code>bigopen()</code> </dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd> function name, follows form of <code>open()</code> </dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt> <code>uint</code> </dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd> <code>typedef</code> </dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt> <code>bigpos</code> </dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd> <code>struct</code> or <code>class</code>, follows form of
|
|
|
|
<code>pos</code> </dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt> <code>sparse_hash_map</code> </dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd> STL-like entity; follows STL naming conventions </dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt> <code>LONGLONG_MAX</code> </dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd> a constant, as in <code>INT_MAX</code> </dd>
|
|
|
|
</dl>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
</CATEGORY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CATEGORY title="Comments">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Though a pain to write, comments are absolutely vital to keeping our
|
|
|
|
code readable. The following rules describe what you should
|
|
|
|
comment and where. But remember: while comments are very
|
|
|
|
important, the best code is self-documenting. Giving sensible
|
|
|
|
names to types and variables is much better than using obscure
|
|
|
|
names that you must then explain through comments.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
When writing your comments, write for your audience: the next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
contributor
|
|
|
|
who will need to understand your code. Be generous — the next
|
|
|
|
one may be you!
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Comment Style">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use either the <code>//</code> or <code>/* */</code> syntax, as long
|
|
|
|
as you are consistent.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
You can use either the <code>//</code> or the <code>/* */</code>
|
|
|
|
syntax; however, <code>//</code> is <em>much</em> more common.
|
|
|
|
Be consistent with how you comment and what style you use where.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="File Comments">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Start each file with a copyright notice, followed by a
|
|
|
|
description of the contents of the file.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Legal Notice and Author Line">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Every file should contain the following items, in order:
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li>a copyright statement (for example,
|
|
|
|
<code>Copyright 2008 Google Inc.</code>)</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>a license boilerplate. Choose the appropriate boilerplate
|
|
|
|
for the license used by the project (for example,
|
|
|
|
Apache 2.0, BSD, LGPL, GPL)</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>an author line to identify the original author of the
|
|
|
|
file</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If you make significant changes to a file that someone else
|
|
|
|
originally wrote, add yourself to the author line. This can
|
|
|
|
be very helpful when another
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
contributor
|
|
|
|
has questions about the file and needs to know whom to contact
|
|
|
|
about it.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="File Contents">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
Every file should have a comment at the top, below the copyright
|
|
|
|
notice and author line, that describes the contents of the file.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Generally a <code>.h</code> file will describe the classes
|
|
|
|
that are declared in the file with an overview of what they
|
|
|
|
are for and how they are used. A <code>.cc</code> file
|
|
|
|
should contain more information about implementation details
|
|
|
|
or discussions of tricky algorithms. If you feel the
|
|
|
|
implementation details or a discussion of the algorithms
|
|
|
|
would be useful for someone reading the <code>.h</code>,
|
|
|
|
feel free to put it there instead, but mention in the
|
|
|
|
<code>.cc</code> that the documentation is in the
|
|
|
|
<code>.h</code> file.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Do not duplicate comments in both the <code>.h</code> and
|
|
|
|
the <code>.cc</code>. Duplicated comments diverge.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Class Comments">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Every class definition should have an accompanying comment that
|
|
|
|
describes what it is for and how it should be used.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Iterates over the contents of a GargantuanTable. Sample usage:
|
|
|
|
// GargantuanTable_Iterator* iter = table->NewIterator();
|
|
|
|
// for (iter->Seek("foo"); !iter->done(); iter->Next()) {
|
|
|
|
// process(iter->key(), iter->value());
|
|
|
|
// }
|
|
|
|
// delete iter;
|
|
|
|
class GargantuanTable_Iterator {
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If you have already described a class in detail in the
|
|
|
|
comments at the top of your file feel free to simply state
|
|
|
|
"See comment at top of file for a complete description", but
|
|
|
|
be sure to have some sort of comment.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Document the synchronization assumptions the class makes, if
|
|
|
|
any. If an instance of the class can be accessed by multiple
|
|
|
|
threads, take extra care to document the rules and invariants
|
|
|
|
surrounding multithreaded use.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Function Comments">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Declaration comments describe use of the function; comments at
|
|
|
|
the definition of a function describe operation.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Function Declarations">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Every function declaration should have comments immediately
|
|
|
|
preceding it that describe what the function does and how to
|
|
|
|
use it. These comments should be descriptive ("Opens the
|
|
|
|
file") rather than imperative ("Open the file"); the comment
|
|
|
|
describes the function, it does not tell the function what
|
|
|
|
to do. In general, these comments do not describe how the
|
|
|
|
function performs its task. Instead, that should be left to
|
|
|
|
comments in the function definition.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Types of things to mention in comments at the function
|
|
|
|
declaration:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> What the inputs and outputs are.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> For class member functions: whether the object
|
|
|
|
remembers reference arguments beyond the
|
|
|
|
duration of the method call, and whether it will
|
|
|
|
free them or not.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> If the function allocates memory that the caller
|
|
|
|
must free.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Whether any of the arguments can be <code>NULL</code>.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> If there are any performance implications of how a
|
|
|
|
function is used.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> If the function is re-entrant. What are its
|
|
|
|
synchronization assumptions?
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Here is an example:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Returns an iterator for this table. It is the client's
|
|
|
|
// responsibility to delete the iterator when it is done with it,
|
|
|
|
// and it must not use the iterator once the GargantuanTable object
|
|
|
|
// on which the iterator was created has been deleted.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// The iterator is initially positioned at the beginning of the table.
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// This method is equivalent to:
|
|
|
|
// Iterator* iter = table->NewIterator();
|
|
|
|
// iter->Seek("");
|
|
|
|
// return iter;
|
|
|
|
// If you are going to immediately seek to another place in the
|
|
|
|
// returned iterator, it will be faster to use NewIterator()
|
|
|
|
// and avoid the extra seek.
|
|
|
|
Iterator* GetIterator() const;
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
However, do not be unnecessarily verbose or state the
|
|
|
|
completely obvious. Notice below that it is not necessary
|
|
|
|
to say "returns false otherwise" because this is implied.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Returns true if the table cannot hold any more entries.
|
|
|
|
bool IsTableFull();
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
When commenting constructors and destructors, remember that
|
|
|
|
the person reading your code knows what constructors and
|
|
|
|
destructors are for, so comments that just say something like
|
|
|
|
"destroys this object" are not useful. Document what
|
|
|
|
constructors do with their arguments (for example, if they
|
|
|
|
take ownership of pointers), and what cleanup the destructor
|
|
|
|
does. If this is trivial, just skip the comment. It is
|
|
|
|
quite common for destructors not to have a header comment.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Function Definitions">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Each function definition should have a comment describing
|
|
|
|
what the function does and anything tricky about how it does
|
|
|
|
its job. For example, in the definition comment you might
|
|
|
|
describe any coding tricks you use, give an overview of the
|
|
|
|
steps you go through, or explain why you chose to implement
|
|
|
|
the function in the way you did rather than using a viable
|
|
|
|
alternative. For instance, you might mention why it must
|
|
|
|
acquire a lock for the first half of the function but why it
|
|
|
|
is not needed for the second half.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Note you should <em>not</em> just repeat the comments given
|
|
|
|
with the function declaration, in the <code>.h</code> file or
|
|
|
|
wherever. It's okay to recapitulate briefly what the function
|
|
|
|
does, but the focus of the comments should be on how it does it.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Variable Comments">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
In general the actual name of the variable should be descriptive
|
|
|
|
enough to give a good idea of what the variable is used for. In
|
|
|
|
certain cases, more comments are required.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Class Data Members">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Each class data member (also called an instance variable or
|
|
|
|
member variable) should have a comment describing what it is
|
|
|
|
used for. If the variable can take sentinel values with
|
|
|
|
special meanings, such as <code>NULL</code> or -1, document this.
|
|
|
|
For example:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
// Keeps track of the total number of entries in the table.
|
|
|
|
// Used to ensure we do not go over the limit. -1 means
|
|
|
|
// that we don't yet know how many entries the table has.
|
|
|
|
int num_total_entries_;
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Global Variables">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
As with data members, all global variables should have a
|
|
|
|
comment describing what they are and what they are used for.
|
|
|
|
For example:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// The total number of tests cases that we run through in this regression test.
|
|
|
|
const int kNumTestCases = 6;
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Implementation Comments">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
In your implementation you should have comments in tricky,
|
|
|
|
non-obvious, interesting, or important parts of your code.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Class Data Members">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Tricky or complicated code blocks should have comments
|
|
|
|
before them. Example:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Divide result by two, taking into account that x
|
|
|
|
// contains the carry from the add.
|
|
|
|
for (int i = 0; i < result->size(); i++) {
|
|
|
|
x = (x << 8) + (*result)[i];
|
|
|
|
(*result)[i] = x >> 1;
|
|
|
|
x &= 1;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Line Comments">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Also, lines that are non-obvious should get a comment at the
|
|
|
|
end of the line. These end-of-line comments should be
|
|
|
|
separated from the code by 2 spaces. Example:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// If we have enough memory, mmap the data portion too.
|
|
|
|
mmap_budget = max<int64>(0, mmap_budget - index_->length());
|
|
|
|
if (mmap_budget >= data_size_ && !MmapData(mmap_chunk_bytes, mlock))
|
|
|
|
return; // Error already logged.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Note that there are both comments that describe what the
|
|
|
|
code is doing, and comments that mention that an error has
|
|
|
|
already been logged when the function returns.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If you have several comments on subsequent lines, it can
|
|
|
|
often be more readable to line them up:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
DoSomething(); // Comment here so the comments line up.
|
|
|
|
DoSomethingElseThatIsLonger(); // Comment here so there are two spaces between
|
|
|
|
// the code and the comment.
|
2008-09-05 02:34:20 +08:00
|
|
|
{ // One space before comment when opening a new scope is allowed,
|
|
|
|
// thus the comment lines up with the following comments and code.
|
|
|
|
DoSomethingElse(); // Two spaces before line comments normally.
|
|
|
|
}
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="NULL, true/false, 1, 2, 3...">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
When you pass in <code>NULL</code>, boolean, or literal integer
|
|
|
|
values to functions, you should consider adding a comment about
|
|
|
|
what they are, or make your code self-documenting by using
|
|
|
|
constants. For example, compare:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
bool success = CalculateSomething(interesting_value,
|
|
|
|
10,
|
|
|
|
false,
|
|
|
|
NULL); // What are these arguments??
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
versus:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
bool success = CalculateSomething(interesting_value,
|
|
|
|
10, // Default base value.
|
|
|
|
false, // Not the first time we're calling this.
|
|
|
|
NULL); // No callback.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Or alternatively, constants or self-describing variables:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
const int kDefaultBaseValue = 10;
|
|
|
|
const bool kFirstTimeCalling = false;
|
|
|
|
Callback *null_callback = NULL;
|
|
|
|
bool success = CalculateSomething(interesting_value,
|
|
|
|
kDefaultBaseValue,
|
|
|
|
kFirstTimeCalling,
|
|
|
|
null_callback);
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Don'ts">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Note that you should <em>never</em> describe the code
|
|
|
|
itself. Assume that the person reading the code knows C++
|
|
|
|
better than you do, even though he or she does not know what
|
|
|
|
you are trying to do:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Now go through the b array and make sure that if i occurs,
|
|
|
|
// the next element is i+1.
|
|
|
|
... // Geez. What a useless comment.
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Punctuation, Spelling and Grammar">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Pay attention to punctuation, spelling, and grammar; it is
|
|
|
|
easier to read well-written comments than badly written ones.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Comments should usually be written as complete
|
|
|
|
sentences with proper capitalization and periods at the end.
|
|
|
|
Shorter comments, such as comments at the end of a line of
|
|
|
|
code, can sometimes be less formal, but you should be
|
|
|
|
consistent with your style. Complete sentences are more
|
|
|
|
readable, and they provide some assurance that the comment is
|
|
|
|
complete and not an unfinished thought.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Although it can be frustrating to have a code reviewer point
|
|
|
|
out that you are using a comma when you should be using a
|
|
|
|
semicolon, it is very important that source code maintain a
|
|
|
|
high level of clarity and readability. Proper punctuation,
|
|
|
|
spelling, and grammar help with that goal.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="TODO Comments">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use <code>TODO</code> comments for code that is temporary, a
|
|
|
|
short-term solution, or good-enough but not perfect.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<code>TODO</code>s should include the string <code>TODO</code> in
|
|
|
|
all caps, followed by your
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
name, e-mail address, or other
|
|
|
|
identifier
|
|
|
|
in parentheses. A colon is optional. The main purpose is to have
|
|
|
|
a consistent <code>TODO</code> format searchable by the person
|
|
|
|
adding the comment (who can provide more details upon request). A
|
|
|
|
<code>TODO</code> is not a commitment to provide the fix yourself.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// TODO(kl@gmail.com): Use a "*" here for concatenation operator.
|
|
|
|
// TODO(Zeke) change this to use relations.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If your <code>TODO</code> is of the form "At a future date do
|
|
|
|
something" make sure that you either include a very specific
|
|
|
|
date ("Fix by November 2005") or a very specific event
|
|
|
|
("Remove this code when all clients can handle XML responses.").
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</CATEGORY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CATEGORY title="Formatting">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Coding style and formatting are pretty arbitrary, but a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
project
|
|
|
|
is much easier to follow if everyone uses the same style. Individuals
|
|
|
|
may not agree with every aspect of the formatting rules, and some of
|
|
|
|
the rules may take some getting used to, but it is important that all
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
project contributors
|
|
|
|
follow the style rules so that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they
|
|
|
|
can all read and understand everyone's code easily.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 00:13:08 +08:00
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
To help you format code correctly, we've created a <A HREF="http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/google-c-style.el">settings
|
|
|
|
file for emacs</A>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Line Length">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Each line of text in your code should be at most 80 characters
|
|
|
|
long.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
We recognize that this rule is controversial, but so much existing
|
|
|
|
code already adheres to it, and we feel that consistency is
|
|
|
|
important.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<PROS>
|
|
|
|
Those who favor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this rule argue
|
|
|
|
that it is rude to force them to resize their windows and there
|
|
|
|
is no need for anything longer. Some folks are used to having
|
|
|
|
several code windows side-by-side, and thus don't have room to
|
|
|
|
widen their windows in any case. People set up their work
|
|
|
|
environment assuming a particular maximum window width, and 80
|
|
|
|
columns has been the traditional standard. Why change it?
|
|
|
|
</PROS>
|
|
|
|
<CONS>
|
|
|
|
Proponents of change argue that a wider line can make code
|
|
|
|
more readable. The 80-column limit is an hidebound
|
|
|
|
throwback to 1960s mainframes;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
modern equipment has
|
|
|
|
wide screens that can easily show longer lines.
|
|
|
|
</CONS>
|
|
|
|
<DECISION>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 characters is the maximum.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Exception: if a comment line contains an example command or
|
|
|
|
a literal URL longer than 80 characters, that line may be
|
|
|
|
longer than 80 characters for ease of cut and paste.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Exception: an <code>#include</code> statement with a long
|
|
|
|
path may exceed 80 columns. Try to avoid situations where this
|
|
|
|
becomes necessary.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Exception: you needn't be concerned about
|
|
|
|
<a href="#The__define_Guard">header guards</a>
|
|
|
|
that exceed the maximum length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</DECISION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Non-ASCII Characters">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Non-ASCII characters should be rare, and must use UTF-8 formatting.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
You shouldn't hard-code user-facing text in source, even English,
|
|
|
|
so use of non-ASCII characters should be rare. However, in certain
|
|
|
|
cases it is appropriate to include such words in your code. For
|
|
|
|
example, if your code parses data files from foreign
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it may be appropriate to hard-code the non-ASCII string(s) used in
|
|
|
|
those data files as delimiters. More commonly, unittest code
|
|
|
|
(which does not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
need to be localized) might contain non-ASCII strings. In such
|
|
|
|
cases, you should use UTF-8, since that is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
an encoding understood by most tools able
|
|
|
|
to handle more than just ASCII.
|
|
|
|
Hex encoding is also OK, and encouraged where it enhances
|
|
|
|
readability — for example, <code>"\xEF\xBB\xBF"</code> is the
|
|
|
|
Unicode zero-width no-break space character, which would be
|
|
|
|
invisible if included in the source as straight UTF-8.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Spaces vs. Tabs">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use only spaces, and indent 2 spaces at a time.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
We use spaces for indentation. Do not use tabs in your code.
|
|
|
|
You should set your editor to emit spaces when you hit the tab
|
|
|
|
key.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Function Declarations and Definitions">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Return type on the same line as function name, parameters on the
|
|
|
|
same line if they fit.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Functions look like this:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
ReturnType ClassName::FunctionName(Type par_name1, Type par_name2) {
|
|
|
|
DoSomething();
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If you have too much text to fit on one line:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
2009-12-04 06:25:38 +08:00
|
|
|
ReturnType ClassName::ReallyLongFunctionName(Type par_name1, Type par_name2,
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
Type par_name3) {
|
|
|
|
DoSomething();
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
or if you cannot fit even the first parameter:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
ReturnType LongClassName::ReallyReallyReallyLongFunctionName(
|
|
|
|
Type par_name1, // 4 space indent
|
|
|
|
Type par_name2,
|
|
|
|
Type par_name3) {
|
|
|
|
DoSomething(); // 2 space indent
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Some points to note:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> The return type is always on the same line as the
|
|
|
|
function name.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> The open parenthesis is always on the same line as the
|
|
|
|
function name.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> There is never a space between the function name and the
|
|
|
|
open parenthesis.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> There is never a space between the parentheses and the
|
|
|
|
parameters.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> The open curly brace is always at the end of the same
|
|
|
|
line as the last parameter.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
2008-12-18 06:24:29 +08:00
|
|
|
<li> The close curly brace is either on the last line by itself
|
|
|
|
or (if other style rules permit) on the same line as the
|
|
|
|
open curly brace.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> There should be a space between the close parenthesis and
|
|
|
|
the open curly brace.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> All parameters should be named, with identical names in the
|
|
|
|
declaration and implementation.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> All parameters should be aligned if possible.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Default indentation is 2 spaces.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Wrapped parameters have a 4 space indent.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If your function is <code>const</code>, the <code>const</code>
|
|
|
|
keyword should be on the same line as the last parameter:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Everything in this function signature fits on a single line
|
|
|
|
ReturnType FunctionName(Type par) const {
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// This function signature requires multiple lines, but
|
|
|
|
// the const keyword is on the line with the last parameter.
|
|
|
|
ReturnType ReallyLongFunctionName(Type par1,
|
|
|
|
Type par2) const {
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If some parameters are unused, comment out the variable name in the
|
|
|
|
function definition:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Always have named parameters in interfaces.
|
|
|
|
class Shape {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
virtual void Rotate(double radians) = 0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Always have named parameters in the declaration.
|
|
|
|
class Circle : public Shape {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
virtual void Rotate(double radians);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Comment out unused named parameters in definitions.
|
|
|
|
void Circle::Rotate(double /*radians*/) {}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Bad - if someone wants to implement later, it's not clear what the
|
|
|
|
// variable means.
|
|
|
|
void Circle::Rotate(double) {}
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Function Calls">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
On one line if it fits; otherwise, wrap arguments at the
|
|
|
|
parenthesis.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Function calls have the following format:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
bool retval = DoSomething(argument1, argument2, argument3);
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If the arguments do not all fit on one line, they should be
|
|
|
|
broken up onto multiple lines, with each subsequent line
|
|
|
|
aligned with the first argument. Do not add spaces after the
|
|
|
|
open paren or before the close paren:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
bool retval = DoSomething(averyveryveryverylongargument1,
|
|
|
|
argument2, argument3);
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If the function has many arguments, consider having one per
|
|
|
|
line if this makes the code more readable:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
bool retval = DoSomething(argument1,
|
|
|
|
argument2,
|
|
|
|
argument3,
|
|
|
|
argument4);
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If the function signature is so long that it cannot fit within
|
|
|
|
the maximum <a href="#Line_Length">line length</a>, you may
|
|
|
|
place all arguments on subsequent lines:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
if (...) {
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
if (...) {
|
|
|
|
DoSomethingThatRequiresALongFunctionName(
|
|
|
|
very_long_argument1, // 4 space indent
|
|
|
|
argument2,
|
|
|
|
argument3,
|
|
|
|
argument4);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Conditionals">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Prefer no spaces inside parentheses. The <code>else</code>
|
|
|
|
keyword belongs on a new line.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
There are two acceptable formats for a basic conditional
|
|
|
|
statement. One includes spaces between the parentheses and the
|
|
|
|
condition, and one does not.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The most common form is without spaces. Either is fine, but
|
|
|
|
<em>be consistent</em>. If you are modifying a file, use the
|
|
|
|
format that is already present. If you are writing new code,
|
|
|
|
use the format that the other files in that directory or
|
|
|
|
project use. If in doubt and you have no personal preference,
|
|
|
|
do not add the spaces.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
if (condition) { // no spaces inside parentheses
|
|
|
|
... // 2 space indent.
|
|
|
|
} else { // The else goes on the same line as the closing brace.
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If you prefer you may add spaces inside the
|
|
|
|
parentheses:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
if ( condition ) { // spaces inside parentheses - rare
|
|
|
|
... // 2 space indent.
|
|
|
|
} else { // The else goes on the same line as the closing brace.
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Note that in all cases you must have a space between the
|
|
|
|
<code>if</code> and the open parenthesis. You must also have
|
|
|
|
a space between the close parenthesis and the curly brace, if
|
|
|
|
you're using one.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
if(condition) // Bad - space missing after IF.
|
|
|
|
if (condition){ // Bad - space missing before {.
|
|
|
|
if(condition){ // Doubly bad.
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
if (condition) { // Good - proper space after IF and before {.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Short conditional statements may be written on one line if
|
|
|
|
this enhances readability. You may use this only when the
|
|
|
|
line is brief and the statement does not use the
|
|
|
|
<code>else</code> clause.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
if (x == kFoo) return new Foo();
|
|
|
|
if (x == kBar) return new Bar();
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
This is not allowed if the if statement has an
|
|
|
|
<code>else</code>:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Not allowed - IF statement on one line when there is an ELSE clause
|
|
|
|
if (x) DoThis();
|
|
|
|
else DoThat();
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
In general, curly braces are not required for single-line
|
2009-01-14 05:41:00 +08:00
|
|
|
statements, but they are allowed if you like them;
|
|
|
|
conditional or loop statements with complex conditions or
|
|
|
|
statements may be more readable with curly braces. Some
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-14 05:41:00 +08:00
|
|
|
projects
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
require that an <CODE>if</CODE> must always always have an
|
|
|
|
accompanying brace.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
if (condition)
|
|
|
|
DoSomething(); // 2 space indent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (condition) {
|
|
|
|
DoSomething(); // 2 space indent.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
However, if one part of an <code>if</code>-<code>else</code>
|
|
|
|
statement uses curly braces, the other part must too:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Not allowed - curly on IF but not ELSE
|
|
|
|
if (condition) {
|
|
|
|
foo;
|
|
|
|
} else
|
|
|
|
bar;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Not allowed - curly on ELSE but not IF
|
|
|
|
if (condition)
|
|
|
|
foo;
|
|
|
|
else {
|
|
|
|
bar;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Curly braces around both IF and ELSE required because
|
|
|
|
// one of the clauses used braces.
|
|
|
|
if (condition) {
|
|
|
|
foo;
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
bar;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Loops and Switch Statements">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Switch statements may use braces for blocks. Empty loop bodies should use
|
|
|
|
<code>{}</code> or <code>continue</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<code>case</code> blocks in <code>switch</code> statements can have
|
|
|
|
curly braces or not, depending on your preference. If you do
|
|
|
|
include curly braces they should be placed as shown below.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If not conditional on an enumerated value, switch statements
|
|
|
|
should always have a <code>default</code> case (in the case of
|
|
|
|
an enumerated value, the compiler will warn you if any values
|
|
|
|
are not handled). If the default case should never execute,
|
|
|
|
simply
|
|
|
|
<code>assert</code>:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
switch (var) {
|
|
|
|
case 0: { // 2 space indent
|
|
|
|
... // 4 space indent
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
case 1: {
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
default: {
|
|
|
|
assert(false);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Empty loop bodies should use <code>{}</code> or
|
|
|
|
<code>continue</code>, but not a single semicolon.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
while (condition) {
|
|
|
|
// Repeat test until it returns false.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
for (int i = 0; i < kSomeNumber; ++i) {} // Good - empty body.
|
|
|
|
while (condition) continue; // Good - continue indicates no logic.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
while (condition); // Bad - looks like part of do/while loop.
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Pointer and Reference Expressions">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
No spaces around period or arrow. Pointer operators do not have
|
|
|
|
trailing spaces.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The following are examples of correctly-formatted pointer and
|
|
|
|
reference expressions:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
x = *p;
|
|
|
|
p = &x;
|
|
|
|
x = r.y;
|
|
|
|
x = r->y;
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Note that:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> There are no spaces around the period or arrow when
|
|
|
|
accessing a member.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Pointer operators have no space after the <code>*</code> or
|
|
|
|
<code>&</code>.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
When declaring a pointer variable or argument, you may place
|
|
|
|
the asterisk adjacent to either the type or to the variable
|
|
|
|
name:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// These are fine, space preceding.
|
|
|
|
char *c;
|
|
|
|
const string &str;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// These are fine, space following.
|
|
|
|
char* c; // but remember to do "char* c, *d, *e, ...;"!
|
|
|
|
const string& str;
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
char * c; // Bad - spaces on both sides of *
|
|
|
|
const string & str; // Bad - spaces on both sides of &
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2008-09-05 02:34:20 +08:00
|
|
|
You should do this consistently within a single
|
|
|
|
file,
|
|
|
|
so, when modifying an existing file, use the style in that
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
file.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Boolean Expressions">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
When you have a boolean expression that is longer than the <a href="#Line_Length">standard line length</a>, be consistent in
|
|
|
|
how you break up the lines.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
In this example, the logical AND operator is always at the end
|
|
|
|
of the lines:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
if (this_one_thing > this_other_thing &&
|
|
|
|
a_third_thing == a_fourth_thing &&
|
2009-12-04 06:25:38 +08:00
|
|
|
yet_another && last_one) {
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
2009-12-04 06:25:38 +08:00
|
|
|
Note that when the code wraps in this example, both of
|
|
|
|
the <code>&&</code> logical AND operators are at the
|
|
|
|
end of the line. This is more common in Google code, though
|
|
|
|
wrapping all operators at the beginning of the line is also
|
|
|
|
allowed. Feel free to insert extra parentheses judiciously,
|
|
|
|
because they can be very helpful in increasing readability
|
2010-05-13 00:52:16 +08:00
|
|
|
when used appropriately. Also note that you should always use the
|
|
|
|
punctuation operators, such as <code>&&</code> and
|
|
|
|
<code>~</code>, rather than the word operators, such as <code>and</code>
|
|
|
|
and <code>compl</code>.
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Return Values">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Do not surround the <code>return</code> expression with parentheses.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Return values should not have parentheses:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
return x; // not return(x);
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Variable and Array Initialization">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Your choice of <code>=</code> or <code>()</code>.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
You may choose between <code>=</code> and <code>()</code>; the
|
|
|
|
following are all correct:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
int x = 3;
|
|
|
|
int x(3);
|
|
|
|
string name("Some Name");
|
|
|
|
string name = "Some Name";
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Preprocessor Directives">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Preprocessor directives should not be indented but should
|
|
|
|
instead start at the beginning of the line.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Even when pre-processor directives are within the body of
|
|
|
|
indented code, the directives should start at the beginning of
|
|
|
|
the line.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Good - directives at beginning of line
|
|
|
|
if (lopsided_score) {
|
|
|
|
#if DISASTER_PENDING // Correct -- Starts at beginning of line
|
|
|
|
DropEverything();
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
BackToNormal();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// Bad - indented directives
|
|
|
|
if (lopsided_score) {
|
|
|
|
#if DISASTER_PENDING // Wrong! The "#if" should be at beginning of line
|
|
|
|
DropEverything();
|
|
|
|
#endif // Wrong! Do not indent "#endif"
|
|
|
|
BackToNormal();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Class Format">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Sections in <code>public</code>, <code>protected</code> and
|
|
|
|
<code>private</code> order, each indented one space.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The basic format for a class declaration (lacking the
|
|
|
|
comments, see <a HREF="#Class_Comments">Class Comments</a> for
|
|
|
|
a discussion of what comments are needed) is:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
class MyClass : public OtherClass {
|
|
|
|
public: // Note the 1 space indent!
|
|
|
|
MyClass(); // Regular 2 space indent.
|
|
|
|
explicit MyClass(int var);
|
|
|
|
~MyClass() {}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void SomeFunction();
|
|
|
|
void SomeFunctionThatDoesNothing() {
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void set_some_var(int var) { some_var_ = var; }
|
|
|
|
int some_var() const { return some_var_; }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
|
|
bool SomeInternalFunction();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int some_var_;
|
|
|
|
int some_other_var_;
|
|
|
|
DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(MyClass);
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Things to note:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> Any base class name should be on the same line as the
|
|
|
|
subclass name, subject to the 80-column limit.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> The <code>public:</code>, <code>protected:</code>, and
|
|
|
|
<code>private:</code> keywords should be indented one
|
|
|
|
space.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Except for the first instance, these keywords should be preceded
|
|
|
|
by a blank line. This rule is optional in small classes.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Do not leave a blank line after these keywords.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> The <code>public</code> section should be first, followed by
|
|
|
|
the <code>protected</code> and finally the
|
|
|
|
<code>private</code> section.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> See <a HREF="#Declaration_Order">Declaration Order</a> for
|
|
|
|
rules on ordering declarations within each of these sections.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Constructor Initializer Lists">
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Constructor initializer lists can be all on one line or with
|
|
|
|
subsequent lines indented four spaces.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
There are two acceptable formats for initializer lists:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// When it all fits on one line:
|
|
|
|
MyClass::MyClass(int var) : some_var_(var), some_other_var_(var + 1) {}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
or
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
// When it requires multiple lines, indent 4 spaces, putting the colon on
|
|
|
|
// the first initializer line:
|
|
|
|
MyClass::MyClass(int var)
|
|
|
|
: some_var_(var), // 4 space indent
|
|
|
|
some_other_var_(var + 1) { // lined up
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
DoSomething();
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Namespace Formatting">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
The contents of namespaces are not indented.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
<a href="#Namespaces">Namespaces</a> do not add an extra level of
|
|
|
|
indentation. For example, use:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
namespace {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void foo() { // Correct. No extra indentation within namespace.
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // namespace
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Do not indent within a namespace:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
namespace {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Wrong. Indented when it should not be.
|
|
|
|
void foo() {
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} // namespace
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
2009-10-24 05:01:49 +08:00
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
When declaring nested namespaces, put each namespace on its own line.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
namespace foo {
|
|
|
|
namespace bar {
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Horizontal Whitespace">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Use of horizontal whitespace depends on location. Never put trailing
|
|
|
|
whitespace at the end of a line.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="General">
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
void f(bool b) { // Open braces should always have a space before them.
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
int i = 0; // Semicolons usually have no space before them.
|
|
|
|
int x[] = { 0 }; // Spaces inside braces for array initialization are
|
|
|
|
int x[] = {0}; // optional. If you use them, put them on both sides!
|
|
|
|
// Spaces around the colon in inheritance and initializer lists.
|
|
|
|
class Foo : public Bar {
|
|
|
|
public:
|
|
|
|
// For inline function implementations, put spaces between the braces
|
|
|
|
// and the implementation itself.
|
|
|
|
Foo(int b) : Bar(), baz_(b) {} // No spaces inside empty braces.
|
|
|
|
void Reset() { baz_ = 0; } // Spaces separating braces from implementation.
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Adding trailing whitespace can cause extra work for others editing
|
|
|
|
the same file, when they merge, as can removing existing trailing
|
|
|
|
whitespace. So: Don't introduce trailing whitespace. Remove it
|
|
|
|
if you're already changing that line, or do it in a separate
|
|
|
|
clean-up
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
operation (preferably when no-one else
|
|
|
|
is working on the file).
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Loops and Conditionals">
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
if (b) { // Space after the keyword in conditions and loops.
|
|
|
|
} else { // Spaces around else.
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
while (test) {} // There is usually no space inside parentheses.
|
|
|
|
switch (i) {
|
|
|
|
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i) {
|
|
|
|
switch ( i ) { // Loops and conditions may have spaces inside
|
|
|
|
if ( test ) { // parentheses, but this is rare. Be consistent.
|
|
|
|
for ( int i = 0; i < 5; ++i ) {
|
|
|
|
for ( ; i < 5 ; ++i) { // For loops always have a space after the
|
|
|
|
... // semicolon, and may have a space before the
|
|
|
|
// semicolon.
|
|
|
|
switch (i) {
|
|
|
|
case 1: // No space before colon in a switch case.
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
case 2: break; // Use a space after a colon if there's code after it.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Operators">
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
x = 0; // Assignment operators always have spaces around
|
|
|
|
// them.
|
|
|
|
x = -5; // No spaces separating unary operators and their
|
|
|
|
++x; // arguments.
|
|
|
|
if (x && !y)
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
v = w * x + y / z; // Binary operators usually have spaces around them,
|
|
|
|
v = w*x + y/z; // but it's okay to remove spaces around factors.
|
|
|
|
v = w * (x + z); // Parentheses should have no spaces inside them.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
<SUBSECTION title="Templates and Casts">
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
vector<string> x; // No spaces inside the angle
|
|
|
|
y = static_cast<char*>(x); // brackets (< and >), before
|
|
|
|
// <, or between >( in a cast.
|
|
|
|
vector<char *> x; // Spaces between type and pointer are
|
|
|
|
// okay, but be consistent.
|
|
|
|
set<list<string> > x; // C++ requires a space in > >.
|
2009-12-04 06:25:38 +08:00
|
|
|
set< list<string> > x; // You may optionally use
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
// symmetric spacing in < <.
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</SUBSECTION>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Vertical Whitespace">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
Minimize use of vertical whitespace.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
This is more a principle than a rule: don't use blank lines
|
|
|
|
when you don't have to. In particular, don't put more than
|
|
|
|
one or two blank lines between functions, don't start or end
|
|
|
|
functions with a blank line, and be discriminating with your
|
|
|
|
use of blank lines inside functions.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The basic principle is: The more code that fits on one screen,
|
|
|
|
the easier it is to follow and understand the control flow of
|
|
|
|
the program. Of course, readability can suffer from code
|
|
|
|
being too dense as well as too spread out, so use your
|
|
|
|
judgement. But in general, minimize use of vertical
|
|
|
|
whitespace.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Don't start or end functions with blank lines:
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
void Function() {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Unnecessary blank lines before and after
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Don't start and end blocks with blank lines either:
|
|
|
|
<BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
while (condition) {
|
|
|
|
// Unnecessary blank line after
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (condition) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Unnecessary blank line before
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</BAD_CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
However, it's okay to add blank lines between a chain of
|
|
|
|
if-else blocks:
|
|
|
|
<CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
if (condition) {
|
|
|
|
// Some lines of code too small to move to another function,
|
|
|
|
// followed by a blank line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
// Another block of code
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
</CODE_SNIPPET>
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
</CATEGORY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<CATEGORY title="Exceptions to the Rules">
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The coding conventions described above are mandatory. However,
|
|
|
|
like all good rules, these sometimes have exceptions, which we
|
|
|
|
discuss here.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Existing Non-conformant Code">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
You may diverge from the rules when dealing with code that does not
|
|
|
|
conform to this style guide.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If you find yourself modifying code that was written to
|
|
|
|
specifications other than those presented by this guide, you may
|
|
|
|
have to diverge from these rules in order to stay consistent with
|
|
|
|
the local conventions in that code. If you are in doubt about
|
|
|
|
how to do this, ask the original author or the person currently
|
|
|
|
responsible for the code. Remember that <em>consistency</em>
|
|
|
|
includes local consistency, too.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<STYLEPOINT title="Windows Code">
|
|
|
|
<SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windows programmers have developed their own set of coding
|
|
|
|
conventions, mainly derived from the conventions in Windows headers
|
|
|
|
and other Microsoft code. We want to make it easy for anyone to
|
|
|
|
understand your code, so we have a single set of guidelines for
|
|
|
|
everyone writing C++ on any platform.
|
|
|
|
</SUMMARY>
|
|
|
|
<BODY>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
It is worth reiterating a few of the guidelines that you might
|
|
|
|
forget if you are used to the prevalent Windows style:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> Do not use Hungarian notation (for example, naming an
|
|
|
|
integer <code>iNum</code>). Use the Google naming conventions,
|
|
|
|
including the <code>.cc</code> extension for source files.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Windows defines many of its own synonyms for primitive
|
|
|
|
types, such as <code>DWORD</code>, <code>HANDLE</code>, etc.
|
|
|
|
It is perfectly acceptable, and encouraged, that you use these
|
|
|
|
types when calling Windows API functions. Even so, keep as
|
|
|
|
close as you can to the underlying C++ types. For example, use
|
|
|
|
<code>const TCHAR *</code> instead of <code>LPCTSTR</code>.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> When compiling with Microsoft Visual C++, set the
|
|
|
|
compiler to warning level 3 or higher, and treat all
|
|
|
|
warnings as errors.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Do not use <code>#pragma once</code>; instead use the
|
|
|
|
standard Google include guards. The path in the include
|
|
|
|
guards should be relative to the top of your project
|
|
|
|
tree.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> In fact, do not use any nonstandard extensions, like
|
|
|
|
<code>#pragma</code> and <code>__declspec</code>, unless you
|
|
|
|
absolutely must. Using <code>__declspec(dllimport)</code> and
|
|
|
|
<code>__declspec(dllexport)</code> is allowed; however, you
|
|
|
|
must use them through macros such as <code>DLLIMPORT</code>
|
|
|
|
and <code>DLLEXPORT</code>, so that someone can easily disable
|
|
|
|
the extensions if they share the code.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
However, there are just a few rules that we occasionally need
|
|
|
|
to break on Windows:
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
|
|
<li> Normally we <a HREF="#Multiple_Inheritance">forbid
|
|
|
|
the use of multiple implementation inheritance</a>; however,
|
|
|
|
it is required when using COM and some ATL/WTL
|
|
|
|
classes. You may use multiple implementation inheritance
|
|
|
|
to implement COM or ATL/WTL classes and interfaces.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Although you should not use exceptions in your own code,
|
|
|
|
they are used extensively in the ATL and some STLs,
|
|
|
|
including the one that comes with Visual C++. When using
|
|
|
|
the ATL, you should define <code>_ATL_NO_EXCEPTIONS</code> to
|
|
|
|
disable exceptions. You should investigate whether you can
|
|
|
|
also disable exceptions in your STL, but if not, it is OK to
|
|
|
|
turn on exceptions in the compiler. (Note that this is
|
|
|
|
only to get the STL to compile. You should still not
|
|
|
|
write exception handling code yourself.)
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> The usual way of working with precompiled headers is to
|
|
|
|
include a header file at the top of each source file,
|
|
|
|
typically with a name like <code>StdAfx.h</code> or
|
|
|
|
<code>precompile.h</code>. To make your code easier to share
|
|
|
|
with other projects, avoid including this file explicitly
|
|
|
|
(except in <code>precompile.cc</code>), and use the
|
|
|
|
<code>/FI</code> compiler option to include the file
|
|
|
|
automatically.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li> Resource headers, which are usually named
|
|
|
|
<code>resource.h</code> and contain only macros, do not need
|
|
|
|
to conform to these style guidelines.
|
|
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
|
|
</STYLEPOINT>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</CATEGORY>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<PARTING_WORDS>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
Use common sense and <em>BE CONSISTENT</em>.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
If you are editing code, take a few minutes to look at the
|
|
|
|
code around you and determine its style. If they use spaces
|
|
|
|
around their <code>if</code> clauses, you should, too. If
|
|
|
|
their comments have little boxes of stars around them, make
|
|
|
|
your comments have little boxes of stars around them too.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
The point of having style guidelines is to have a common
|
|
|
|
vocabulary of coding so people can concentrate on what you are
|
|
|
|
saying, rather than on how you are saying it. We present
|
|
|
|
global style rules here so people know the vocabulary. But
|
|
|
|
local style is also important. If code you add to a file
|
|
|
|
looks drastically different from the existing code around it,
|
|
|
|
the discontinuity throws readers out of their rhythm when they
|
|
|
|
go to read it. Try to avoid this.
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<p>
|
|
|
|
OK, enough writing about writing code; the code itself is much
|
|
|
|
more interesting. Have fun!
|
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
</PARTING_WORDS>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<HR/>
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 00:13:08 +08:00
|
|
|
<p align="right">
|
2010-05-13 00:52:16 +08:00
|
|
|
Revision 3.161
|
2009-01-06 00:13:08 +08:00
|
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
|
2008-06-28 04:10:09 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<address>
|
|
|
|
Benjy Weinberger<br/>
|
|
|
|
Craig Silverstein<br/>
|
|
|
|
Gregory Eitzmann<br/>
|
|
|
|
Mark Mentovai<br/>
|
|
|
|
Tashana Landray
|
|
|
|
</address>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</GUIDE>
|