From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id rl2PGo2cGmF+EQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 13:12:45 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5BB391EDFB; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 13:12:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDF351E4A3 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 13:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5674C3951887 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 17:12:44 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5674C3951887 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1629133964; bh=zKuZruj0IT3nIyBZWTezYqKBAO0xR9ygfpBndi3N3OE=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=eKVfBQVWQymTBswhhPWTy+0DldA+TA5oKqW3SlPp5sLtsw2KDjieQLzS52YWTB1WJ XTsBqsQPwp/178Aq32Z1NoibAIAtMc5e2pfmW/seghVErseXiDQlDwsOUI3ADuSay+ 4vwT/UWjdqToNH94tF37zJf/AjvP91UaEXTHUb+g= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60B853953D08 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 17:11:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 60B853953D08 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 17GHBYg4009791 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Aug 2021 13:11:39 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 17GHBYg4009791 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34B3E1E4A3; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 13:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Coding standards proposal, usage of "this" To: John Baldwin , Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches References: <4bd1cb46-fdcc-cb6a-c7ad-22aba3294772@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <00698c41-1af7-b9a8-f127-449a1a06911c@polymtl.ca> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 13:11:33 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4bd1cb46-fdcc-cb6a-c7ad-22aba3294772@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Mon, 16 Aug 2021 17:11:34 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-08-16 1:06 p.m., John Baldwin wrote: > On 8/13/21 7:26 AM, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Here's something I had in mind for a while. We don't consistently use >> `this` when referring to fields or methods of the current object. I >> never now if I should use it or not, or point it out in review. I >> therefore propose these rules so that we have something to refer to. >> >> - Use `this` when referring to a data member that is not prefixed by >> `m_`. Rationale: without `this`, it's not clear that you are >> referring to a member of the current class, versus a local or global >> variable. >> - Don't use `this` when referring to a data member that is prefixed by >> `m_`. Rationale: the prefix already makes it clear that you are >> referring to a member of the current class, so adding `this` would >> just add noise. > > These seem fine to me. > >> - Use `this` when referring to a method of the current class. >> Rationale: without `this, it's not clear that you are referring to a >> method of the current class, versus a free function. > > This one feels a bit odd to me, though it may just be something I'm not > used to. It is something I haven't seen used before in C++ at least. So, the first two seem to be more accepted, and this last one less. I'd be fine just going with the first two then (even though in my opinion the reason for using `this` to refer to a non-prefixed data member applies the same when referring to a non-prefied member function). Simon