Lack of Cohesion of Methods at Type Level for C++

[mcserep]

The single responsibility principle states that a class should have only one reason to change and one responsibility. Such a class is said to be cohesive.
A class has strong cohesion if its individual operations use as many of the class's fields as possible. Otherwise, the class is likely to perform multiple roles.

Several metrics exist for calculating a Lack of Cohesion of Methods value (hereinafter LCOM).
The algorithms used by CppDepend to compute LCOM metrics and LCOM HS (Henderson-Sellers variant of LCOM) are the following:
LCOM = 1 – (sum(MF)/(M*F))
LCOM HS = (M – sum(MF)/F)/(M-1)

Where:

• M is the number of methods in class (both static and instance methods are counted);
• F is the number of instance fields in the class;
• MF is the number of methods of the class accessing a particular instance field;
• sum(MF) is the sum of MF over all instance fields of the class.

The LCOM takes its values in the range [0-1]. The LCOM HS takes its values in the range [0-2].
A class is utterly cohesive if all its methods use all its instance fields, which means that sum(MF)=M*F and then LCOM = 0 and LCOMHS = 0.

Recommendations:
Consider only types with more than 10 methods and 10 fields.
In such cases an LCOM value larger than 0.8 or an LCOMHS value larger than 1.0 might be problematic.
The constraint related to LCOMHS is stronger (and thus easier to satisfy) than the constraint related to LCOM.

[dbukki]

In LCOM = 1 – (sum(MF)/M*F), the M*F part should actually be in parentheses, right?
Because if I interpret this formula as-is, then for the edge-case of sum(MF)=M*F we get LCOM = 1 – (sum(MF)/M*F) = 1 – (M*F/M*F) = 1 – F*F, which would only be 0 for records with exactly 1 field...

Also, according to this article, the second formula (for the Henderson-Sellers variant) is also wrong, there should be a division between (M – sum(MF)/F) and (M-1), not a multiplication. But then it's also interesting what happens at M=1; is the value simply undefined?

Finally, if these metrics produce fractional numbers, how should we store them in our metrics table where the value column of CppAstNodeMetrics currently expects unsigned int?
Should we consider changing the type of the column to double or should we instead premultiply the value by some constant and then discard the remaining fractional part?

[mcserep]

@dbukki I have updated the formula above.

[mcserep]

Finally, if these metrics produce fractional numbers, how should we store them in our metrics table where the value column of CppAstNodeMetrics currently expects unsigned int?
Should we consider changing the type of the column to double or should we instead premultiply the value by some constant and then discard the remaining fractional part?

@dbukki Use scaling for now.

UPDATE: as discussed at #688 (comment) , refactor it to a nullable float field instead.