From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 1DS9AU2BFmHFFwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 10:27:25 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id EEA771EDFB; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 10:27:24 -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 314751E4A3 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 10:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB97E399DC23 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:27:23 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CB97E399DC23 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1628864843; bh=Phh1YjnJvMqJphZaqYU0CQ8kdlPgR04btYpVZj6fjV8=; h=To:Subject:Date:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:From; b=cLJbJHsmtbnxB8VEXAY0X6txq/gpPHu9n8LiJJGlh3UbsAppAEMzktYj2tqI6XPUs UE/i/xX69VbE7/RSTgTRk3mpq35IZU5uMYQvdU5Z7qsizXLlG/q9w2JVaUICx8KYsG mHVLV+jLJi684GI51fC0vzIRVNvDVVC/16/zgIi0= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CC3A388F02C for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:26:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5CC3A388F02C 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 17DEQnpp002813 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 10:26:53 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 17DEQnpp002813 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 F2AFA1E4A3 for ; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 10:26:48 -0400 (EDT) To: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Subject: Coding standards proposal, usage of "this" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 10:26:48 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:26:49 +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" 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. - 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. If we had a convention for how to name internal helper methods, which would make it clear that they are methods of the current object and not free functions (a bit like `m_` does for data members), we could omit `this` when calling such a method. But we don't have that at the moment. A concrete example: int a_global; struct a_struct { int a_method () { int a_local = 17; return (a_local + a_global + m_a_private_field + this->a_public_field + this->a_helper_method ()); } int a_public_field; private: int a_helper_method () { return m_a_private_field; } int m_a_private_field; }; Any comments? My intention would be to add this to the coding standards on the wiki. Simon