[gmx-developers] Re: abstract type convention

[Mark Abraham]

In general, I agree with avoiding/removing redundant gmx prefixes. However,
some simple types make sense with the prefix, because we wish to be able to
hide/change the implementation later.

For example, there is at least one smart pointer in that category, because
there was no c++98 way to get the full job done. In twenty years when even
Fujitsu support c++11, removing the prefix will be reasonable.

There was an earlier thread about gmx_bool, too, that I think resolved that
new code should use proper bool. gmx_bool is typedefed to an int. Vestiges
of it will be around for a while.

Mark
My understanding is that our c++ convention is to use the gmx namespace,
right?
http://www.gromacs.org/index.php?title=Developer_Zone/Programming_Guide/Allowed_C%2B%2B_Features

The example there of gmx::gmx_unique_ptr does seem a little redundant.  If
we're using the gmx namespace, then it would seem we'd want to ditch the
gmx prefix.  Is that what you're suggesting, Berk?

Thanks,
--Peter


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kasson, MD, PhD
Assistant Professor
Departments of Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics
and of Biomedical Engineering
University of Virginia



--
gmx-developers mailing list
gmx-developers at gromacs.org
http://lists.gromacs.org/mailman/listinfo/gmx-developers
Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
www interface or send it to gmx-developers-request at gromacs.org.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://maillist.sys.kth.se/pipermail/gromacs.org_gmx-developers/attachments/20130611/0e50fa7d/attachment.html>