From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 64022 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2016 12:07:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 62504 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2016 12:07:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:962, 2016-11-24, our X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:07:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AD3A804F2; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:06:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn03.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.3]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uAUC6wwO004294; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:06:58 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/22] Class-ify ui_out_level To: Simon Marchi References: <20161124152428.24725-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20161124152710.25007-16-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <82c06e7795f785cdff3090bb38880a2b@polymtl.ca> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <5a48d12d-c6ab-1c31-53ce-80a85602362b@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 12:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <82c06e7795f785cdff3090bb38880a2b@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00975.txt.bz2 On 11/26/2016 04:22 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2016-11-24 13:41, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> -struct ui_out_level >>> +/* A level of nesting (either a list or a tuple) in a ui_out >>> output. */ >>> + >>> +class ui_out_level >>> +{ >>> + public: >>> + >>> + ui_out_level (ui_out_type type) >> >> explicit ? > > I had a discussion about this with Antoine. Is it a good practice to > use explicit all the time, and only omit it when there's a good reason > why? Yes, I believe so. Let's turn the question around: why _would_ you want to support implicit conversion from ui_out_type to ui_out_level? E.g, would this code make any sense? ui_out_level level = ui_out_type_list; if (level == ui_out_type_tuple) I'd leave implicit conversions for when you're actually trying to code a converting constructor. > I initially put it on all the constructors, but decided to drop it > after our discussion. Thanks, Pedro Alves