[Insight-developers] ITK namespace delimiter discussion

[George Stetten]

I go for option #1, with option #4 as second choice.

Brad King wrote:

> After some discussion amongst a small group of us off the list, it has
> been decided that the ITK_NAMESPACE_BEGIN and ITK_NAMESPACE_END macros may
> not be a good idea.  The alternative we propose is to go back to the
>
> namespace itk
> {
> //...
> } // namespace itk
>
> approach, but indent everything inside the namespace by two extra spaces:
>
> namespace itk
> {
>   //...
> } // namespace itk
>
> This would leave the namespace's closing "}" as the only one in the
> left-most column, thus making it obvious.  It does, however, take all
> function opening "{" and closing "}" characters out of that column, and
> indent them two spaces.  It also reduces the number of characters per line
> by two before running over the 79 character guideline.
>
> Before I make any changes related to this, I'd like the list to reach a
> consensus on which way to go.  The choices that have been proposed are:
>
> // 1
> namespace itk
> {
> // old style, don't indent inside namespace
> // requires comment at end of namespace
> } // namespace itk
>
> // 2
> namespace itk
> {
>   // new style, indent namespace by 2 characters
> } // ending comment optional, only "}" in this column.
>
> // 3  (appropriate macros defined in header)
> ITK_NAMESPACE_BEGIN
> // no need to indent, no "{" characters appear.
> ITK_NAMESPACE_END
>
> // 4  (appropriate macros defined in header)
> BEGIN_NAMESPACE (itk)
> // no need to indent, no "{" characters appear.
> END_NAMESPACE (itk)
>
> Capitalization of macros is up for debate, of course.
>
> -Brad
>
> _______________________________________________
> Insight-developers mailing list
> Insight-developers at public.kitware.com
> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers

--
George Stetten, M.D., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Bioengineering, U. Pitt.
Research Scientist, CMU Robotics Institute
412-624-7762
george at stetten.com