incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: svn commit: r672395 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include: functional rw/_ref_wrap.h
Date Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:45:50 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Lemings 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:42 PM
> To: 'dev@stdcxx.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: svn commit: r672395 - in 
> /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include: functional rw/_ref_wrap.h
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
> Martin Sebor
> > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 2:51 PM
> > To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r672395 - in 
> > /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/include: functional rw/_ref_wrap.h
> > 
> ...
> > 
> >    5. The definitions of even trivial non-empty functions should
> >       never appear on the same line as the function signature. I.e.,
> >       the above should be:
> > 
> >       type& get() const {
> >           _RWSTD_ASSERT (0 != _C_ptr);
> >           return *_C_ptr;
> >       }
> 
> I assume empty function definitions are exempted from this convention?
> 

Hey...  I also see one-line trivial functions in <limits>, <set>, and
<vector> headers.

Brad.

Mime
View raw message