On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@google.com> wrote: > <p>Function prototypes for extern functions should only occur in > header files. Functions should be ordered within source files to > minimize the number of function prototypes, by defining them before > @@ -121,13 +208,13 @@ > necessary, to break mutually recursive cycles.</p> >
If you always put entry functions in the bottom of a source file, and generically, always put upper layer functions below the lower layer functions. Then probably there will be no need for function prototypes in a source file. > +<h4><a name="Namespace_Use">Namespaces</a></h4> > + > +<p> > +Namespaces are encouraged. > +All separable libraries should have a unique global namespace. > +All individual tools should have a unique global namespace. > +Nested include directories names should map to nested namespaces when > possible. > +</p> Do all people have a consensus on the use of namespace ? > + > +<p> > +Header files should have neither <code>using</code> directives > +nor namespace-scope <code>using</code> declarations. > +</p> > + > +<p> > +There is no alternative to <code>using</code> declarations > +in class definitions to manage names within an inheritance hierarchy, > +so they are necessarily permitted. > +</p> > +<h4><a name="Exceptions">Exceptions</a></h4> > + > +<p> > +Exceptions and throw specifications are not permitted > +and the compiler must build cleanly with <code>-fno-exceptions</code>. > +</p> > + > +<p> > +<a href="codingrationale.html#exceptions">Rationale and Discussion</a> > +</p> > + > + > +<h4><a name="Standard_Library">The Standard Library</a></h4> > + > +<p> > +Use of the standard library is permitted. > +Note, however, that it is currently not usable with garbage collected > data. > +</p> > + > +<p> > +For compiler messages, indeed any text that needs i18n, > +should continue to use the existing facilities. > +</p> > + > +<p> > +For long-term code, at least for now, > +we will continue to use <code>printf</code> style I/O > +rather than <code><iostream></code> style I/O. > +For quick debugging code, > +<code><iostream></code> is permitted. > +</p> Is iostream really suitable or necessary for GCC ? Have you think about writing another thinner interface , like Java's IO stream. -- Chiheng Xu
