[PATCH] Add dive list view to main window

[Dirk Hohndel]

"Lubomir I. Ivanov" <neolit123 at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> something else is usage of C++ pointers:
>>> const QString &filename
>>> i would use C pointers here. other's opinions?
>>
>> Ha... my C++ ignorance comes into play... what's the difference?
>
> they are called "references":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_(C%2B%2B)#Relationship_to_pointers
> above page describes differences with pointers. i find them limiting
> instead of a better alternative to pointers.
>
> there are big discussions against C pointers in favor of "references", such as:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7058339/c-when-to-use-references-vs-pointers

Yuck. No, let's stick with C pointers wherever possible, please.
I now remember learning about references in the mandatory C++ class at
university two decades ago. Nightmares that I had since tried to forget.

>>>> +DiveItem::DiveItem(int num, QString dt, float dur, float dep, QString loc, DiveItem *p):
>>>> +    m_number(num), m_dateTime(dt), m_duration(dur), m_depth(dep), m_location(loc), m_parent(p)
>>> in another thread i pointed out that m_name or m_Name for members is
>>> not preferable over mName. perhaps others could comment here as well.
>>
>> We went a bit back and forth and then decided that members should follow
>> the Qt style of naming, i.e., C++ stuff goes the Qt naming (but
>> Subsurface whitespace and indentation), C stuff goes Subsurface way of
>> naming. And global variable names are based on "where they come from"
>> (boy, that vague definition is sure to bite me at some point).
>>
>
> i guess i'm OK with the style mSomeVar, then again in C, we don't
> really separate globals with function locals.
> also henrik, makes a good point that prefixing isn't exactly needed
> and i agree with that.

Yes, I think that's the much more correct answer. I missed that this was
about the m_ prefix. See my other email.

>>> on this:
>>> +        DiveItem * item = static_cast<DiveItem*>(index.internalPointer());
>>> not sure on the final word on C++ casts as well, but at least we can
>>> try keeping the * with the following spacing:
>>> +        DiveItem *item = static_cast<DiveItem *>(index.internalPointer());
>>
>> I hate seeing C++ casts. Why would I use them over standard C casts?
>
> similar to "references", they are "supposed to be better".

In the same way as stabbing yourself ten times in the eye is better than
doing it just once?

/D