Replace repetitive code in SettingsObjectWrapper.cpp by functions?

[Lubomir I. Ivanov]

On 18 November 2017 at 17:53, Dirk Hohndel <dirk at hohndel.org> wrote:
> Hi Berthold,
>
>> On Nov 18, 2017, at 12:02 AM, Berthold Stoeger <bstoeger at mail.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>
>> For consistency, I made a few C-strings non-const. And ultimately also the
>> return of system_default_filename(void). If preferred, the latter could be kept
>> const and the const cast away when assigning to the item of the pref struct.
>
> That I'm not so sure about. We try to use these const declarations to prevent
> users of these strings from modifying them when they are supposed to be
> immutable.
>

i agree that things like system_default_...() calls should return a
"const char *".

const char *language;
const char *lang_locale;

^ also make sense to me to be "const".

>> Note that this is really only a quick proof of concept and I probably
>> introduced numerous bugs. But if you think this is a good idea, I can try to
>> go over each case and check it for plausibility.
>
> The scary part (for me) is that you are using C++ constructs outside of my
> comfort zone. I have always pushed back when Tomaz went into what I
> consider C++-lala-land.
> I think I mostly understand what the template does and how the namespace
> is used, but I realize that I'd be uncomfortable editing this code without some
> serious Googling and that makes me nervous.
>
> That's not to say that this is wrong. It's to say that I really want to see what
> Tomaz or some other C++ programmers think about it.
>
> Linus and I are fundamentally C programmers who use C++ because we
> have to in order to be able to use Qt. I'm getting more comfortable with
> some of the classes in Qt and their advantages, but I'm still not someone
> who feels super comfortable with C++ as a whole.
>

i would agree that we are a mostly a C centralized team.

we don't have C++ template usage in subsurface, yet.
it's one of those things that can become messy with excessive usage.

but at the same time it's very nice in this particular usage case -
typed getters and setters.
it moves the bloat away from the source code and is generated as
object code bloat at compile time.
that said, i don't like debugging such object code.

benefits? - less source code
difficult to debug? - yes, more difficult than (overloaded)
non-templated getters and setters

i'm 60% OK with limited template usage of this type, as long as
templates don't propagate in the *entire app* and nobody want's to
touch it anymore.

lubomir
--