From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 81501 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2016 13:27:22 -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 80413 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2016 13:27:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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 13:27:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (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 725593D943; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:27:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn03.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.3]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uAUDR95C030996; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:27:09 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/22] Class-ify ui_out_level To: Antoine Tremblay References: <20161124152428.24725-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20161124152710.25007-16-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <82c06e7795f785cdff3090bb38880a2b@polymtl.ca> <5a48d12d-c6ab-1c31-53ce-80a85602362b@redhat.com> Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:27:00 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00984.txt.bz2 On 11/30/2016 12:40 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote: > Note that in the discussion I argued that it would be a good idea to > keep it for single argument constructors, but that I though that there > was little chance of confusion for multiple argument constructors like: > > ui_out_table (int entry_level, int nr_cols, const std::string &id) Yeah, unless all the arguments except the first are defaulted, like: ui_out_table (int entry_level, int nr_cols = 0, const std::string &id = "") then it's effectively the same as single-argument constructor, and allows implicit conversion from int. There's at least one such case in the series: ui_out (ui_out_impl_base *impl, int flags = 0); Maintly harmless, given the types involved, but still I'd think it better to be explicit. > (See: https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Conversions) > > I'm starting to think we need to document these things as the GCC coding > conventions may not be exactly what we want and reading the ML there's > more and more questions about this... In this case it looks like it's documented? Thanks, Pedro Alves