Mointy,
we should probably delay this discussion until the meta-discussions have
settled, but you raised some concrete questions that need answers :)
Michael Widenius wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>>>>> "Roy" == Roy Lyseng <Roy.Lyseng@stripped> writes:
>
> Roy> Kostja,
> Roy> thanks for bringing this up!
>
> Roy> I can raise a few issues:
>
> Roy> 1. switch style should be more specific. (I saw 4 different styles on a
> Roy> brief scan of sql_select.cc).
>
> THere is only one style. However it's not enforced.
The description is too brief: It does not mention placement of switch
labels and embedded code.
"After switch use a brace on the same line, and do not indent the next
line."
>
> In the 'perfect' world we could have a script that fixes the style on
> or before commit to get rid of this problem.
>
> We have an old script, but it only works to 95 %; Not good enough to
> be truested for automatic fixing...
>
> Roy> 2. "space" advice for bitwise operators missing.
>
> Agree
>
> Roy> 3. How does class JOIN fit into the coding rules?
>
> Can you explain ?
All capital letters? Besides, the class name should be more descriptive,
like Join_operations (this is NOT a proposal). It could also be more
generic, like Relational_operations.
>
>
> Roy> 4. How do we handle "modern" C++ (templates, namespaces, exceptions,...)
>
> Don't use them in the server code :)
> (Especially templates and exceptions)
Using exceptions is a major change that would need careful consideration.
Templates are already introduced - they need guidelines for when and why.
Namespaces - I think they can be useful in some places - but use with
care...
Thanks,
Roy
