Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Merge pull request #777 from cubbimew/nvi
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
dropping NVI from proto-rules due to no consensus on #768
  • Loading branch information
gdr-at-ms authored Feb 13, 2017
2 parents 80e06de + bc41bd6 commit 2b6d208
Showing 1 changed file with 0 additions and 1 deletion.
1 change: 0 additions & 1 deletion CppCoreGuidelines.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -19427,7 +19427,6 @@ Alternatively, we will decide that no change is needed and delete the entry.
* Never pass a pointer down the call stack
* falling through a function bottom
* Should there be guidelines to choose between polymorphisms? YES. classic (virtual functions, reference semantics) vs. Sean Parent style (value semantics, type-erased, kind of like `std::function`) vs. CRTP/static? YES Perhaps even vs. tag dispatch?
* Speaking of virtual functions, should non-virtual interface be promoted? YES. (public non-virtual `foo()` calling private/protected `do_foo()`)? Not a new thing, seeing as locales/streams use it, but it seems to be under-emphasized.
* should virtual calls be banned from ctors/dtors in your guidelines? YES. A lot of people ban them, even though I think it's a big strength of C++ that they are ??? -preserving (D disappointed me so much when it went the Java way). WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE?
* Speaking of lambdas, what would weigh in on the decision between lambdas and (local?) classes in algorithm calls and other callback scenarios?
* And speaking of `std::bind`, Stephen T. Lavavej criticizes it so much I'm starting to wonder if it is indeed going to fade away in future. Should lambdas be recommended instead?
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 2b6d208

Please sign in to comment.