To-do: Unclassified proto-rules
This is our to-do list. Eventually, the entries will become rules or parts of rules. Alternatively, we will decide that no change is needed and delete the entry.
- No long-distance friendship
- Should physical design (what's in a file) and large-scale design (libraries, groups of libraries) be addressed?
- Namespaces
- Avoid using directives in the global scope (except for std, and other "fundamental" namespaces (e.g. experimental))
- How granular should namespaces be? All classes/functions designed to work together and released together (as defined in Sutter/Alexandrescu) or something narrower or wider?
- Should there be inline namespaces (à la
std::literals::*_literals)? - Avoid implicit conversions
- Const member functions should be thread safe ... aka, but I don't really change the variable, just assign it a value the first time it's called ... argh
- Always initialize variables, use initialization lists for member variables.
- Anyone writing a public interface which takes or returns
void*should have their toes set on fire. That one has been a personal favorite of mine for a number of years. :) - Use
const-ness wherever possible: member functions, variables and (yippee)const_iterators - Use
auto (size)vs.{initializers}vs.{Extent{size}}- Don't overabstract
- Never pass a pointer down the call stack
- falling through a function bottom
- Should there be guidelines to choose between polymorphisms? YES. classic (virtual functions, reference semantics) vs. Sean Parent style (value semantics, type-erased, kind of like
std::function) vs. CRTP/static? YES Perhaps even vs. tag dispatch? - should virtual calls be banned from ctors/dtors in your guidelines? YES. A lot of people ban them, even though I think it's a big strength of C++ that they are ??? -preserving (D disappointed me so much when it went the Java way). WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE?
- Speaking of lambdas, what would weigh in on the decision between lambdas and (local?) classes in algorithm calls and other callback scenarios?
- And speaking of
std::bind, Stephen T. Lavavej criticizes it so much I'm starting to wonder if it is indeed going to fade away in future. Should lambdas be recommended instead? - What to do with leaks out of temporaries? :
p = (s1 + s2).c_str(); - pointer/iterator invalidation leading to dangling pointers:
void bad()
{
int* p = new int[700];
int* q = &p[7];
delete p;
vector<int> v(700);
int* q2 = &v[7];
v.resize(900);
// ... use q and q2 ...
}
- LSP
- private inheritance vs/and membership
- avoid static class members variables (race conditions, almost-global variables)
- Use RAII lock guards (
lock_guard,unique_lock,shared_lock), never callmutex.lockandmutex.unlockdirectly (RAII) - Prefer non-recursive locks (often used to work around bad reasoning, overhead)
- Join your threads! (because of
std::terminatein destructor if not joined or detached ... is there a good reason to detach threads?) -- ??? could support library provide a RAII wrapper forstd::thread? - If two or more mutexes must be acquired at the same time, use
std::lock(or another deadlock avoidance algorithm?) - When using a
condition_variable, always protect the condition by a mutex (atomic bool whose value is set outside of the mutex is wrong!), and use the same mutex for the condition variable itself. - Never use
atomic_compare_exchange_strongwithstd::atomic<user-defined-struct>(differences in padding matter, whilecompare_exchange_weakin a loop converges to stable padding) - individual
shared_futureobjects are not thread-safe: two threads cannot wait on the sameshared_futureobject (they can wait on copies of ashared_futurethat refer to the same shared state) - individual
shared_ptrobjects are not thread-safe: different threads can call non-constmember functions on differentshared_ptrs that refer to the same shared object, but one thread cannot call a non-constmember function of ashared_ptrobject while another thread accesses that sameshared_ptrobject (if you need that, consideratomic_shared_ptrinstead) - rules for arithmetic