[vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK

Mon Aug 18 18:09:02 EDT 2014

+1! ... actually: ++1 :-)

I would support this. To keep VTK relevant we need to be introducing these
features. Especially features like nullptr, unique_ptr etc.

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.

Regards
   Andrew

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:05 AM, <vtk-developers-request at vtk.org> wrote:

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Marcus D. Hanwell" <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com>
> To: VTK Developers <vtk-developers at vtk.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:45:37 -0400
> Subject: [vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK
> Hi,
>
> As we move forward, it would be great to get a feeling for people's
> thoughts about integrating some components of C++11 optionally. So if
> C++11 is available/enabled, there are several features we could enable
> optionally at compile time.
>
> A very simple example is that of the new override keyword, that is
> used to indicate that a member function is overriding a virtual
> function. Using this can avoid mistakes where the signature changes
> and derived classes are missed. It can be defined in a header (empty
> on old compilers, override with recent compilers). Final is similar,
> indicating that the virtual function cannot be overridden in derived
> classes.
>
> This would introduce changes to the VTK coding style, where we now use
> virtual for all virtual functions (first declaration, or subsequent
> overrides). We could introduce this gradually for new code, even
> having one or two dashboards compiling this way would help spot simple
> errors such as an incorrect signature not actually overriding a
> function, but in fact declaring a new virtual for example.
>
> In these cases I would suggest simple naming, so VTK_OVERRIDE and
> VTK_FINAL would be used where a C++11 only code would simply use the
> new keywords.
>
> Thoughts, objections? There are lots of other features, and I know it
> will be a while before we can use them all but it would be great to
> make a start with some of the easier ones that can improve code
> quality with little overhead.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ben Boeckel <ben.boeckel at kitware.com>
> To: "Marcus D. Hanwell" <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com>
> Cc: VTK Developers <vtk-developers at vtk.org>
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:21:56 -0400
> Subject: Re: [vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 13:45:37 -0400, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
> > Thoughts, objections? There are lots of other features, and I know it
> > will be a while before we can use them all but it would be great to
> > make a start with some of the easier ones that can improve code
> > quality with little overhead.
>
> What about "= delete" for removing default assignment and copy
> constructors?
>
> --Ben
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Marcus D. Hanwell" <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com>
> To: Ben Boeckel <ben.boeckel at kitware.com>
> Cc: VTK Developers <vtk-developers at vtk.org>
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:29:10 -0400
> Subject: Re: [vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Ben Boeckel <ben.boeckel at kitware.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 13:45:37 -0400, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
> >> Thoughts, objections? There are lots of other features, and I know it
> >> will be a while before we can use them all but it would be great to
> >> make a start with some of the easier ones that can improve code
> >> quality with little overhead.
> >
> > What about "= delete" for removing default assignment and copy
> > constructors?
> >
> Certainly, I think we should start out simple and then build it out.
> If we have prototypes for a few of the most useful features that can
> easily be encapsulated in compile time logic that will degrade to
> C++98 that would be great.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Sean McBride" <sean at rogue-research.com>
> To: "Marcus D. Hanwell" <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com>, "VTK Developers" <
> vtk-developers at vtk.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:50:12 -0400
> Subject: Re: [vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:45:37 -0400, Marcus D. Hanwell said:
>
> >As we move forward, it would be great to get a feeling for people's
> >thoughts about integrating some components of C++11 optionally. So if
> >C++11 is available/enabled, there are several features we could enable
> >optionally at compile time.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> nullptr is another one that can be made to work even on older compilers
> with some #define glue.
>
> 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.
>
> PS: I already have dashboards building as C++11 and C++14.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________________
> Sean McBride, B. Eng                 sean at rogue-research.com
> Rogue Research                        www.rogue-research.com
> Mac Software Developer              Montréal, Québec, Canada
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Sean McBride" <sean at rogue-research.com>
> To: "Marcus D. Hanwell" <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com>, "VTK Developers" <
> vtk-developers at vtk.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:05:38 -0400
> Subject: Re: [vtk-developers] Introducing (optional) C++11 features in VTK
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:50:12 -0400, Sean McBride said:
>
> >nullptr is another one that can be made to work even on older compilers
> >with some #define glue.
> >
> >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.
>
> I hit send too fast...
>
> 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".
>
> <http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-modernize.html>
>
> Specifically, it can be used to automatically add 'override' and convert
> to 'nullptr':
>
> <http://clang.llvm.org/extra/AddOverrideTransform.html>
> <http://clang.llvm.org/extra/UseNullptrTransform.html>
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> ____________________________________________________________
> Sean McBride, B. Eng                 sean at rogue-research.com
> Rogue Research                        www.rogue-research.com
> Mac Software Developer              Montréal, Québec, Canada
>
>
> --
___________________________________________
Andrew J. P. Maclean

___________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/vtk-developers/attachments/20140819/030d3dfa/attachment-0002.html>