[gmx-developers] Re: abstract type convention

Mark Abraham mark.j.abraham at gmail.com
Tue Jun 11 08:34:24 CEST 2013

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.

My understanding is that our c++ convention is to use the gmx namespace,

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?


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
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>

More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-developers mailing list