Style-Guiding Identifiers #929
davschneller
started this conversation in
General
Replies: 3 comments 4 replies
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
2 replies
-
In general, what we're mostly talking about can also be found in https://github.com/SeisSol/SeisSol/blob/master/.clang-tidy . Two more things to discuss:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
2 replies
-
Adding this here, we could also think of adopting e.g. https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines gradually? Other than that, I'll try to come up with a suitable |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Hi everyone,
since we've now
clang-tidy
available for the whole code, there's still an issue that we could talk about:what kind of style do we want to enforce for identifiers (e.g. class names, attributes, enum values etc.)?
For example, (private) class member variables currently either have the prefix
m_
(cf. e.g. LtsLayout), no prefix, or the suffix_
as seen in #876 .The question is... On what do we want to settle here? Nothing seems to be super ideal of the three. Some thoughts:
m_
is makes the code pretty hard to read, in my opinion._
as suffix is still bearable, even though it also decreases the readability by a bit.get
/set
always also looks a bit convoluted IMO.Another questions is e.g.: if we have a
constexpr
orstatic constexpr
: should we takecamelCase
orPascalCase
? (I'd personally prefer the latter)Since we're at it: any opinion on header file endings or file name casing?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions