<div dir="ltr">Hi Ken<div><br><div class="gmail_extra">Good point, thanks for that.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Andrew</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Moreland, Kenneth <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kmorel@sandia.gov" target="_blank">kmorel@sandia.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>
<div>+1 for me too.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, my vote is actually to introduce things like VTK_OVERRIDE and VTK_FINAL until pre-C++11 compilers get abandoned. I find it disconcerting when libraries try to get cute with changing the behavior of (or trying to emulate) keywords with preprocessor
macros. It can be pretty confusing when something goes wrong, and good luck if you have to use two separate projects together that both tried to define preprocessor macros with different implementations.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Ken</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:11pt;text-align:left;color:black;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Andrew Maclean <<a href="mailto:andrew.amaclean@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrew.amaclean@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span>"<a href="mailto:andrew.amaclean@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrew.amaclean@gmail.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:andrew.amaclean@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrew.amaclean@gmail.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Monday, August 18, 2014 4:09 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>VTK Developers <<a href="mailto:vtk-developers@vtk.org" target="_blank">vtk-developers@vtk.org</a>>, "Marcus D. Hanwell" <<a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com" target="_blank">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a>>, Ben Boeckel <<a href="mailto:ben.boeckel@kitware.com" target="_blank">ben.boeckel@kitware.com</a>>,
Sean McBride <<a href="mailto:sean@rogue-research.com" target="_blank">sean@rogue-research.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>[EXTERNAL] Re: [vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK<br>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">+1! ... actually: ++1 :-)
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would support this. To keep VTK relevant we need to be introducing these features. Especially features like nullptr, unique_ptr etc.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But I would not be happy at introducing more VTK defines like VTK_OVERRIDE and VTK_FINAL - unless absolutely necessary. I much prefer Sean's idea of using a modernise tool.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards<br>
</div>
<div> Andrew<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:05 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vtk-developers-request@vtk.org" target="_blank">vtk-developers-request@vtk.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: "Marcus D. Hanwell" <<a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com" target="_blank">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a>><br>
To: VTK Developers <<a href="mailto:vtk-developers@vtk.org" target="_blank">vtk-developers@vtk.org</a>><br>
Cc: <br>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:45:37 -0400<br>
Subject: [vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
As we move forward, it would be great to get a feeling for people's<br>
thoughts about integrating some components of C++11 optionally. So if<br>
C++11 is available/enabled, there are several features we could enable<br>
optionally at compile time.<br>
<br>
A very simple example is that of the new override keyword, that is<br>
used to indicate that a member function is overriding a virtual<br>
function. Using this can avoid mistakes where the signature changes<br>
and derived classes are missed. It can be defined in a header (empty<br>
on old compilers, override with recent compilers). Final is similar,<br>
indicating that the virtual function cannot be overridden in derived<br>
classes.<br>
<br>
This would introduce changes to the VTK coding style, where we now use<br>
virtual for all virtual functions (first declaration, or subsequent<br>
overrides). We could introduce this gradually for new code, even<br>
having one or two dashboards compiling this way would help spot simple<br>
errors such as an incorrect signature not actually overriding a<br>
function, but in fact declaring a new virtual for example.<br>
<br>
In these cases I would suggest simple naming, so VTK_OVERRIDE and<br>
VTK_FINAL would be used where a C++11 only code would simply use the<br>
new keywords.<br>
<br>
Thoughts, objections? There are lots of other features, and I know it<br>
will be a while before we can use them all but it would be great to<br>
make a start with some of the easier ones that can improve code<br>
quality with little overhead.<br>
<br>
Marcus<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: Ben Boeckel <<a href="mailto:ben.boeckel@kitware.com" target="_blank">ben.boeckel@kitware.com</a>><br>
To: "Marcus D. Hanwell" <<a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com" target="_blank">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a>><br>
Cc: VTK Developers <<a href="mailto:vtk-developers@vtk.org" target="_blank">vtk-developers@vtk.org</a>><br>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:21:56 -0400<br>
Subject: Re: [vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK<br>
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 13:45:37 -0400, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:<br>
> Thoughts, objections? There are lots of other features, and I know it<br>
> will be a while before we can use them all but it would be great to<br>
> make a start with some of the easier ones that can improve code<br>
> quality with little overhead.<br>
<br>
What about "= delete" for removing default assignment and copy<br>
constructors?<br>
<br>
--Ben<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: "Marcus D. Hanwell" <<a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com" target="_blank">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a>><br>
To: Ben Boeckel <<a href="mailto:ben.boeckel@kitware.com" target="_blank">ben.boeckel@kitware.com</a>><br>
Cc: VTK Developers <<a href="mailto:vtk-developers@vtk.org" target="_blank">vtk-developers@vtk.org</a>><br>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:29:10 -0400<br>
Subject: Re: [vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK<br>
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ben Boeckel <<a href="mailto:ben.boeckel@kitware.com" target="_blank">ben.boeckel@kitware.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 13:45:37 -0400, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:<br>
>> Thoughts, objections? There are lots of other features, and I know it<br>
>> will be a while before we can use them all but it would be great to<br>
>> make a start with some of the easier ones that can improve code<br>
>> quality with little overhead.<br>
><br>
> What about "= delete" for removing default assignment and copy<br>
> constructors?<br>
><br>
Certainly, I think we should start out simple and then build it out.<br>
If we have prototypes for a few of the most useful features that can<br>
easily be encapsulated in compile time logic that will degrade to<br>
C++98 that would be great.<br>
<br>
Marcus<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: "Sean McBride" <<a href="mailto:sean@rogue-research.com" target="_blank">sean@rogue-research.com</a>><br>
To: "Marcus D. Hanwell" <<a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com" target="_blank">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a>>, "VTK Developers" <<a href="mailto:vtk-developers@vtk.org" target="_blank">vtk-developers@vtk.org</a>><br>
Cc: <br>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:50:12 -0400<br>
Subject: Re: [vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK<br>
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:45:37 -0400, Marcus D. Hanwell said:<br>
<br>
>As we move forward, it would be great to get a feeling for people's<br>
>thoughts about integrating some components of C++11 optionally. So if<br>
>C++11 is available/enabled, there are several features we could enable<br>
>optionally at compile time.<br>
<br>
+1 from me.<br>
<br>
nullptr is another one that can be made to work even on older compilers with some #define glue.<br>
<br>
Instead of creating a 'VTK_OVERRIDE', we could also use 'override' as if we required C++11 and "#define override /* nothing */" as appropriate. Then when C++11 really is the minimun requirement no big find/replace is required. Just a thought.<br>
<br>
PS: I already have dashboards building as C++11 and C++14.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
--<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
Sean McBride, B. Eng <a href="mailto:sean@rogue-research.com" target="_blank">sean@rogue-research.com</a><br>
Rogue Research <a href="http://www.rogue-research.com" target="_blank">
www.rogue-research.com</a><br>
Mac Software Developer Montréal, Québec, Canada<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: "Sean McBride" <<a href="mailto:sean@rogue-research.com" target="_blank">sean@rogue-research.com</a>><br>
To: "Marcus D. Hanwell" <<a href="mailto:marcus.hanwell@kitware.com" target="_blank">marcus.hanwell@kitware.com</a>>, "VTK Developers" <<a href="mailto:vtk-developers@vtk.org" target="_blank">vtk-developers@vtk.org</a>><br>
Cc: <br>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:05:38 -0400<br>
Subject: Re: [vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK<br>
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:50:12 -0400, Sean McBride said:<br>
<br>
>nullptr is another one that can be made to work even on older compilers<br>
>with some #define glue.<br>
><br>
>Instead of creating a 'VTK_OVERRIDE', we could also use 'override' as if<br>
>we required C++11 and "#define override /* nothing */" as appropriate.<br>
>Then when C++11 really is the minimun requirement no big find/replace is<br>
>required. Just a thought.<br>
<br>
I hit send too fast...<br>
<br>
I also wanted to suggest looking at the clang-modernize tool, which is "a standalone tool used to automatically convert C++ code written against old standards to use features of the newest C++ standard".<br>
<br>
<<a href="http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-modernize.html" target="_blank">http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-modernize.html</a>><br>
<br>
Specifically, it can be used to automatically add 'override' and convert to 'nullptr':<br>
<br>
<<a href="http://clang.llvm.org/extra/AddOverrideTransform.html" target="_blank">http://clang.llvm.org/extra/AddOverrideTransform.html</a>><br>
<<a href="http://clang.llvm.org/extra/UseNullptrTransform.html" target="_blank">http://clang.llvm.org/extra/UseNullptrTransform.html</a>><br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
--<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
Sean McBride, B. Eng <a href="mailto:sean@rogue-research.com" target="_blank">sean@rogue-research.com</a><br>
Rogue Research <a href="http://www.rogue-research.com" target="_blank">
www.rogue-research.com</a><br>
Mac Software Developer Montréal, Québec, Canada<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
-- <br>
___________________________________________<br>
Andrew J. P. Maclean<br>
<br>
___________________________________________ </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></span>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>___________________________________________<br>Andrew J. P. Maclean<br><br>___________________________________________
</div></div></div>