More code cleanup

[Boris Barbulovski]

(1)
  I will read thru the CodingStyle.

(2)
  QLineEdit * -> QLineEdit change is for performance reasons(not that will
have any performance boost, I believe it's a good practice).
  pros:
  * There is one less dynamic allocation/deallocation if you use object
variable member instead of pointer(to object) variable member.
  * Member data are inline.
  * Heap memory is less fragmented.
  * Automatic object destruction(you don't need to set parent())
  cons:
  none(afaik)
  limitations:
  Life-cycle of the member variable is the same as the object having it.

  and possibly others that I can't think of.

(3)
  I will.

I hope the explanation is understandable, if not, we can drop the patches
that are not clear(not worth generating discussion for such insignificant
changes)

I have another set of patches, in which one of them is fixed memory leak I
made in this series.

ps. Sorry that patches are not in right format(yet), I improve in the
future.

br, Boris..


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Dirk Hohndel <dirk at hohndel.org> wrote:

>
> Thanks for all the patches!
>
> a few quick comments...
>
> (1) look at our CodingStyle document
>
> - in a C++ constructor initialization list, the colon is on the same  line
> and
>   continuation lines are aligned as the rule above:
>
>         ClassName::ClassName() : x(1), y(2),
>                                  z(3)
>         {
>         }
>
> You do Qt style with the colon and comma moved into the next line which
> I find rather unfortunate... I fixed that in several commits
>
> (2) some of the changes are obviously useful, others would really
> benefit from more explanations (for example in the "DiveListView tiny
> cleanup" " * Change 'searchBox' member type from 'QLineEdit *' to
> 'QLineEdit'"... why is that a good thing? Avoids a memory leak?
>
> (3) watch your line length in commit messages
>
>
>
> Tomaz, can you please go through the commits that were pushed and make
> sure there aren't any unintended side effects? The changes made sense to
> me and the chosen initializer values seemed reasonable (Boris had a
> couple of questionmarks there in the commit messages).
>
> Anyway. Pushed. And thanks :-)
>
> ?D
>
> On Sun, 2014-02-09 at 20:16 +0100, Boris Barbulovski wrote:
> > * mainly class constructor initialize list updates
> > * some initialize list reorder
> > * some class static instance() function member removal
> >
> > * some lazy stucture initializations
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > subsurface mailing list
> > subsurface at hohndel.org
> > http://lists.hohndel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
>
>
>


-- 
*Boris Barbulovski*
http://mkfusion.bokicsoft.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hohndel.org/pipermail/subsurface/attachments/20140210/69b690d5/attachment-0001.html>