4 ms·

Hello friends! Author here, nice to see so much discussion :) I've spent most of my adult life working on large C++ codebases with public API's (most notably Q

by akling 7y ago

Hello friends! Author here, nice to see so much discussion :) I've spent most of my adult life working on large C++ codebases with public API's (most notably Qt and WebKit), which has led me to cultivate a defensive programming mindset. Someone mentioned Hyrum's law, which is 100% accurate in my experience. I should be honest and admit that Badge<T> is not yet diligently applied everywhere in the Serenity codebase. I wanted to "feel it out" for a while first, but now I've decided I like it, so I'm applying it more and more going forward. Oh and while I have your attention, I recently posted a May 2019 update video[1] on the Serenity OS project if you're curious how things are going :) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHpGvwBTRxM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHpGvwBTRxM

w0utert 7y ago
I like this idea, except for the fact that the extra parametrer pollutes the method signature and method calls, for something that really should only be a compile-time directive. I'm actually curious why something like this has never been included as a language feature, it seems trivial to come up with a syntax for fine-grained access control, that is fully backwards-compatible and a true zero-cost abstraction. Most obvious first shot: class A { private: void badgedFunction() const friend Device, SomeOtherClass; }; Did you ever check with the C++ working group if there are any proposals for language extensions for this purpose?
- akling 7y ago
  Yeah, polluting the signatures is a shame. I've only just decided that I enjoy using this pattern so my internal standards committee hadn't progressed to the proposal stage yet. :) Your syntax makes perfect sense to me, and I think it would make a great addition to the language. I wonder what the real working group would say. (I tried quickly googling for something that might sound like an existing proposal but came up empty.)

by akling 7y ago

w0utert 7y ago

I like this idea, except for the fact that the extra parametrer pollutes the method signature and method calls, for something that really should only be a compile-time directive. I'm actually curious why something like this has never been included as a language feature, it seems trivial to come up with a syntax for fine-grained access control, that is fully backwards-compatible and a true zero-cost abstraction. Most obvious first shot: class A { private: void badgedFunction() const friend Device, SomeOtherClass; }; Did you ever check with the C++ working group if there are any proposals for language extensions for this purpose?

akling 7y ago
Yeah, polluting the signatures is a shame. I've only just decided that I enjoy using this pattern so my internal standards committee hadn't progressed to the proposal stage yet. :) Your syntax makes perfect sense to me, and I think it would make a great addition to the language. I wonder what the real working group would say. (I tried quickly googling for something that might sound like an existing proposal but came up empty.)