> On Jun 16, 2016, at 2:30 PM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> On Jun 16, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Alan Carroll <solidwallofc...@yahoo-inc.com> >> wrote: >> >> "This is not a reason to go nuts and use every damn C++11 and STL feature >> there is" >> >> Exactly. One doesn't need a reason for that. >> >> Yes, I think we should move this up. Two feature at least that I think would >> help making the code cleaner are "auto" and lambdas. For the latter there is >> no shortage of tiny little classes that would be shorter and clearer with >> lambda. > > Rather than ad-hoc C++11 changes, we should target specific things we want, > add it to the coding guidelines and use clang-modernize of clang-tidy to make > the change if possible. I think nullptr, auto, and <atomic> are good > candidates.
Agreed, we need to have better guidelines for how we expect people to use C++ and how not to use STL :). But, this change is more about enabling C++11 as a possibility at all, so I see these two things as one (gcc 4.8) enabling the other (better code guidelines). It’s a bit of wild west already, with some code being way more obscure and unfriendly than other. Cheers, — Leif
