[squid-dev] Fwd: [PATCH] for loops modernization

[Alex Rousskov]

On 03/12/2017 08:42 PM, khaled belhout wrote:
> I used clang-tidy tool to modernize all these loops.
> http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/

It looks like that tool is not ready for fully automated use. If you
want to fix its results, please use "const auto" where possible and
avoid using "i" for naming the current iteration object.


> we can take the advantage of the tool by selecting the changes that
> make code more readable understandable and maintainable.

Please do not misinterpret my earlier comments as an argument against
range loops. Range loops are good and new code should use them!

However, I doubt the advantages of changing those old loops outweigh
cross-branch development costs right now. Others may disagree, and, if
they do, I would not object to a polished patch being committed.


Thank you,

Alex.


> 2017-03-12 16:31 GMT+01:00 Alex Rousskov:
>> On 03/12/2017 07:45 AM, khaled belhout wrote:
>>
>>> this patch modernize for loops using c++11 Range-based for loop
>>
>> Please use "const auto" where possible and avoid using "i" for naming
>> the current iteration object.
>>
>> I am curious why did you decide to change all these loops? How did you
>> select the loops to change? Normally, we avoid wide-spread polishing
>> touches to minimize the price developers working with older code have to
>> pay when porting back various bug fixes and features. I am trying to
>> decide whether the advantages of changing these loops outweigh those
>> costs in this case.