Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dino!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Request for C++ coding "guidelines"
Message-ID: <25D0B18E.27508@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 90 23:38:54 GMT
References: <2754@arran.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Reply-To: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ron Guilmette)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 30

In article <2754@arran.tcom.stc.co.uk> dpw@tcom.stc.co.uk (David Weeks) writes:
>This is a request for information on C++ coding "guidelines" of any sort
>whatsoever. Please e-mail responses to me directly, and if there is
>sufficient response I will post a summary!

This sounds like a good project, and one we might all benefit from.

I suggest starting from some existing set of C coding guidelines.  Somebody
please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't I see a set of C coding guidelines
float by somewhere on net news not that long ago?  Where did it come from?
I can't remember now.  Wasn't it AT&T or Bell Labs or Belcore or...

A couple of minor personal preferences...

Peter G. recently was ranting and raving that people should never define
member functions within classes.  I tend to agree.

Regarding the extent to which inline functions should be used, I believe that
there have been numerous comments here lately pointing out that the use of
inline functions should be highly restricted.  Some radicals among us (Who, me?)
may say that inline functions should never be used.  I am reminded of the ending
of the movie 2010.  I envision an alternative ending in which some mysterious
God-like entity broadcasts a message to all of programmerkind:

	"All of these language features are your's except for inline
	 functions.  Attempt no usage thereof."

I've obviously been watching too much late night TV. :-)

// rfg