[ILUG] Re: C++ Coding Standards

[Sonic]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:44:11 +0200, Brian Foster <blf at blf.utvinternet.ie> wrote:

> 
>  I understand.  but please allow me to argue the 3-rule
>  approach still works:  the main issue (in yer case)
>  seems to be "existing code".  it sounds like you don't
>  have any.  in which case, Yes, find a stone table.
>  treat it as yer existing code (i.e., the style that is
>  to be copied).  the three rules now kick in:
>       3. follow the existing code;
>  else 2. it's Ok if the coders and reviewers _agree_ it's Ok;
>  and  1. all reasonable exceptions are allowed.

I like and agree completely with the 3 rules. It's just that I'm at the step before being able to implement them yet. We all still have to agree on a starting point.

> 
>  and to be absolutely clear on one thing:  I'm not
>  saying (and have tried to never imply) style doesn't
>  matter.  of course it does!  however, neither style
>  _conformance_ nor _non_conformance_ is the same as
>  _quality_.  doing both — conforming unless there
>  is a good reason not to — helps quality (especially,
>  perhaps, when people agree quality, not what a stone
>  table says, is more important).

I completely agree too :)

Cheers and thanks to all who responded.

Sonic