| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
I do hear all of you. Let's keep the intent of this patch and the implementation aside, I already learned in other side-talks, that having an IDE telling you the complete name and more is no default nor a desired situation for most developers.Potential for errors aside, I think auto makes the code less readable and yes code readability matters. In this case, I have to go look up the return value of GetNewConfig() because I don't know what an auto type is. I do know what a wxConfigBase* type is. I'll just warn everyone now that I am not a big fan of using certain syntax just for the sake of being "C++ correct". If it makes the code less readable, I will resist committing it.
The right thing to do is using a std::unique_ptr at that spot, that was the purpose of the patch and it solves for two leaks that are happening in the codebase currently. Now I only need to know how I should go about your concerns. Maybe using something along the lines of
using WX_CONFIG_PTR = std::unique_ptr< wxConfigBase >;
?
I would like to avoid cluttering the source-code with the
smart-pointer-templates, to avoid people saying "look how long that is,
a good coder (tm) will just call delete correctly!".
A sidenote: if I find myself working on some parts of the code, are there objections if I silently add "override" specifiers in related code? I find these help a lot. Also there are many inline specifiers on in-class member-function definitions that could be removed.
Kind Regards Michael
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
