With my developer hat on, I'm +1 on this for 7.0.0. I cringe a little with my ops hat on and +0 there. Would love to get more feedback from users on this.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:47 PM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > 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 > >
