Op maandag 25 december 2017 17:34:22 CET schreef Christian Stimming:
> Hi Geert,
>
> just two bits of thoughts from my side:
>
> Am Sonntag, 24. Dezember 2017, 17:34:51 schrieb Geert Janssens:
> > 1. Use of namespaces.
> > ... nested namespaces ...
>
> Yes, absolutely. I have quite some experience with C++ libraries and
> applications and I made very positive experience with this scheme. In our
> case this means we put all of our code in a "gnc::" namespace (at least).
>
> For me, the nicest way to write this was indeed to wrap the content of every
> file by "namespace gnc {" and "}" (except for the #include directives and
> such). There are some examples - but very few - where some other code
> requires us to put code from us in other namespaces, such as some io
> modifiers, or operators for std classes, but this is then clearly visible.
>
> Nevertheless "using namespace gnc" should rather not be used, as it makes
> the point of namespaces quite moot, as John already said.
>
Ok, I can live with this as well.
> Also, if there is some sort of "modules" that are used in some places but
> not everywhere, it is also useful to add another level of sub-namespace.
> Such as "gnc::import::", but maybe not quite the "engine", as it is used
> throughout everywhere of our code anyway.
>
Agreed, adding an "engine" sub-namespace would not add much.
> If there are any nested namespaces, I would strongly recommend to match the
> namespace structure also in the directory names, at least the topmost ones.
> In our case this implies to match this also in the gnc-modules structure.
>
Good point.
> Apart from this, and for the project of our size, we might very well not
> need more than two levels of namespaces.
>
Agreed.
> As for the namespace aliases such as "namespace gia =
> gnc::import::aqbanking", those must not appear in header files, but may
> appear in cpp files. However, I didn't like those in general, as it makes
> readability for other people much harder. In terms of mutual readability of
> code, I would rather stick to the plain namespace names and that's it.
>
Ok. I know we are using them in our new c++ code when referencing certain
boost namespaces. And the readability aspect works both ways. If namespaces
get too long, the code becomes hard to read as well. I have found my IDE
(kdevelop currently) quite helpful in deciphering the aliases. I'm not sure
which way I like best currently.
Geert
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
