-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 394
Coding Standards Part 1 Style
- [Part 0: Automated Analysis](Coding Standards Part 0 Automated Analysis)
- [Part 1: Style](Coding Standards Part 1 Style)
- [Part 2: Performance and Safety](Coding Standards Part 2 Performance and Safety)
- [Part 3: References and Further Reading](Coding Standards Part 3 References and Further Reading)
Style guidelines are not overly strict. The important thing is that code is clear and readable with an appropriate amount of whitespace and reasonable length lines. A few best practices are also mentioned.
C++ allows for arbitrary length identifier names, so there's no reason to be terse when naming variables. Use descriptive names, and be consistent in the style
CamelCase
snake_case
are common examples. snake_case has the advantage that it can also work with spell checkers, if desired.
- Types start with capitals:
MyClass
- functions and variables start with lower case:
myMethod
- [SM] Do we want to specify a preference for my_method over myMethod? The former is probably more common now. Qt and some libs use the latter. An exclusion when the case is vital to the meaning should be allowed.
- constants are all capital:
const int PI=3.14159265358979323;
- [SM] That is more common for macros. Could be informative to readers on the other hand sometimes the constness is an implementation detail that shouldn't leak into the point of use. Also, it emphasizes the constants visually when they may be relatively unimportant:
foo( arg, ROUTINENAME )
is not lovely.
- [SM] That is more common for macros. Could be informative to readers on the other hand sometimes the constness is an implementation detail that shouldn't leak into the point of use. Also, it emphasizes the constants visually when they may be relatively unimportant:
Note that the C++ standard does not follow any of these guidelines. Everything in the standard is lowercase only.
Name private data with a m_
prefix to distinguish it from public data.
- [SM] Name decorating by storage type is needed to distinguish the data from its accessors but putting the decoration at the front of the name obscures readability. Suggest
x
for public data,x_
for private data,x()
for accessors for readability.
Name function parameters with an t_
prefix.
- [SM] Suggest we reconsider this. Overemphasizes source of variable and sort of anti-OO in the sense that in a local scope the source of a variables is an external implementation detail.
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass(int t_data)
: m_data(t_data)
{
}
int getData() const
{
return m_data;
}
private:
int m_data;
};
C++ source file should be named .cpp
or .cc
NOT .c
C++ header files should be named .hpp
NOT .h
C++11 introduces nullptr
which is a special type denoting a null pointer value. This should be used instead of 0 or NULL to indicate a null pointer.
Comment blocks should use //
, not /* */
. Using //
makes it much easier to comment out a block of code while debugging.
// this function does something
int myFunc()
{
}
To comment out this function block during debugging we might do:
/*
// this function does something
int myFunc()
{
}
*/
which would be impossible if the function comment header used /* */
This causes the name space you are using
to be pulled into the namespace of the header file.
Header files must contain an distinctly named include guard to avoid problems with including the same header multiple times or conflicting with other headers from other projects
#ifndef MYPROJECT_MYCLASS_HPP
#define MYPROEJCT_MYCLASS_HPP
namespace MyProject {
class MyClass {
};
}
#endif
Tabs are not allowed, and a mixture of tabs and spaces is strictly forbidden. Modern autoindenting IDEs and editors require a consistent standard to be set.
// Good Idea
int myFunction(bool t_b)
{
if (t_b)
{
// do something
}
}
[SM] There are good arguments for both tab and space indenting. Tabs have some benefits: 1) User controls indenting they want to see in their IDE, 2) With visual indent set to 3 or above commenting out lines doesn't break indentation alignment (this is very nice!), 3) Files are slightly smaller and thus should be very slightly faster to compile.
Leaving them off can lead to semantic errors in the code.
// Bad Idea
// this compiles and does what you want, but can lead to confusing
// errors if close attention is not paid.
for (int i = 0; i < 15; ++i)
std::cout << i << std::endl;
// Bad Idea
// the cout is not part of the loop in this case even though it appears to be
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 15; ++i)
++sum;
std::cout << i << std::endl;
// Good Idea
// It's clear which statements are part of the loop (or if block, or whatever)
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 15; ++i) {
++sum;
std::cout << i << std::endl;
}
// Bad Idea
// hard to follow
if (x && y && myFunctionThatReturnsBool() && caseNumber3 && (15 > 12 || 2 < 3)) {
}
// Good Idea
// Logical grouping, easier to read
if (x && y && myFunctionThatReturnsBool()
&& caseNumber3
&& (15 > 12 || 2 < 3)) {
}
[SM] Converted code is currently unwrapped pending decision on line wrapping. Since IDEs can soft-wrap for you one option is to leave lines unwrapped and let the user control visual wrapping to make best use of their display and preferences. Wrapping lines is hard to do nicely and some editors (looking at you, emacs!) do silly things with aligning wrapped lines on function parentheses that creates a maintenance burden.
... <>
is reserved for system includes.
// Bad Idea. Requires extra -I directives to the compiler
// and goes against standards
#include <string>
#include <includes/MyHeader.hpp>
// Worse Idea
// requires potentially even more specific -I directives and
// makes code more difficult to package and distribute
#include <string>
#include <MyHeader.hpp>
// Good Idea
// requires no extra params and notifies the user that the file
// is a local file
#include <string>
#include "MyHeader.hpp"
[SM] The reason for <path/MyHeader.hpp>
is two-fold:
-
Search semantics for "MyHeader.hpp" are not fully specified in the language and thus creates a potential portability problem. Search with
<>
is precisely specified. This is particularly important for cross-platform projects where you may want precise override control to pick up different headers depending on the platform/compiler (for a cleaner more maintainable approach than an#ifdef
mess). - Putting a namespace path in front of the header file name prevents header name collisions between the application and a library or 2 application namespaces.
-
These reasons are why projects like Boost use the
<boost/header.hpp>
style.
...with the member initializer list
// Bad Idea
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass(int t_value)
{
m_value = t_value;
}
private:
int m_value;
};
// Good Idea
// C++'s memeber initializer list is unique to the language and leads to
// cleaner code and potential performance gains that other languages cannot
// match
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass(int t_value)
: m_value(t_value)
{
}
private:
int m_value;
};
This:
// some header file
class MyClass;
void doSomething(const MyClass &);
instead of:
// some header file
#include "MyClass.hpp"
void doSomething(const MyClass &);
This is a proactive approach to simplify compilation time and rebuilding dependencies.
There is almost never a reason to declare an identifier in the global namespaces. Instead, functions and classes should exist in an appropriately named namespaces or in a class inside of a namespace. Identifiers which are placed in the global namespace risk conflicting with identifiers from other (mostly C, which doesn't have namespaces) libraries.
Compiler definitions and macros are replaced by the pre-processor before the compiler is ever run. This can make debugging very difficult because the debugger doesn't know where the source came from.
// Good Idea
namespace my_project {
class Constants {
public:
static const double PI = 3.14159;
}
}
// Bad Idea
#define PI 3.14159;