Recurring C++ and Qt anti-patterns
-
-
Nope. It warns if it doesn't actually guard (as if you had put incidentally
;at the end of the if):if (something) something else; something else else; //< Can't warn about that -
OMG
QString CharToString(char *str) { QString result = ""; int lengthOfString = strlen(str); QString s; for(int i = 0; i < lengthOfString; i++) { s = QString("%1").arg(str[i], 0, 16); if(s.length() == 1) result.append("0"); result.append(s); } return result; }There are multiple anti-patterns in that function (who finds all?!), but basically the solution is to use:
QString s = QByteArray::toHex(str); -
What I meant was the following example:
which is already an improvement on poorly formatted code.
Regards
-
Hmmm... I have just found some icky syntax that makes me think it is an anti-pattern just cause its icky:
#include <vector> template <class T> class IteratorClass { public: std::vector<int>::iterator end(); // neat syntax std::vector<T>::iterator end2(); // error, needs typename typename std::vector<T>::iterator begin(); // really? this is getting ugly using retIterator = typename std::vector<T>::iterator; // ugly typedef typename std::vector<T>::iterator retIterator; // fugly private: std::vector<T> m_data; };Got stuck on this last night and just couldn't figure out why the simplest syntax would not work with templates. My IDE even told me I needed "typename" and I kept trying "typedef" (💩). Yeah, it was not a good time to be coding, so I went to bed. 😀
-
@fcarney said in Recurring C++ and Qt anti-patterns:
std::vector<T>::iterator end2(); // error, needs typename
Yeah, this being an error (inside a template definition) really bugs me as well.
I'm sure there is a perfectly good brainiac reason it barfs, but I could really see myself wanting to do something like this, as "end2" instead of end2()
-
@Kent-Dorfman
Apparently its a "dependent name":
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/dependent_nameI have not taken time to understand it, but there is the "reason".
-
I think I may need to stop coding in the evening. I ran into a weird bug that I cannot duplicate today:
#include <vector> template<class T> class SomeObject { using Storage = std::vector<T>; public: SomeObject(size_t len){ m_data.resize(len); } size_t getSize(){ return m_data.size(); } private: Storage m_data; }; class UsesSomeObject { public: UsesSomeObject() : m_someval(0) , m_somedata(128) // if not initialized the whole object was spitting out weird data { } private: int m_someval; SomeObject<int> m_somedata; };I don't know if this had anything to do with templates or not. I was working with one at the time. There is a comment in the above code about not initializing m_somedata. I didn't have a default constructor or maybe it created one for me (not sure). Accessing the vector internal to the class had all sorts of "interesting" behavior. Then when I realized my error everything started working fine. It was just a very sneaky issues. However, on my compiler at work it is not letting me compile this. So I am not sure of the situation where it would let me compile this. Maybe if it creates its own default constructor. The lesson is make sure everything is getting initialized before using them!
I will check tonight to see if I can simplify the actual condition that caused this. It was quite interesting and the errors didn't match the source of the problem.
-
Not an antipattern, just disappointing. I cannot do this:
std::vector<float&> frefs;I know why. I know you can use std::reference_wrapper, but it is kinda messy to me.
-
I guess I don't have a problem with it because in the cases where I might ever consider such an abomination there are always pointers...yes, always pointers.
-
@Kent-Dorfman said in Recurring C++ and Qt anti-patterns:
always pointers
We should start an anti-safe coding movement (I say this with disdain for idea of safety, there is nothing safe about systems level coding IMO, or coding in general) . The slogan would be "Always Pointers".
-
I hate to break this to you guys but pointers and references are the same thing. References are just syntax constraint, something like const, so disappointment in this case would be like disappointment that you can't assign to a const value. IMO using
std::reference_wrapperbecause you don't like those naked stars is just silly.
As for "Always Pointers" - why so extreme? How about more mellow party like "pointers where they make sense"? -
@Chris-Kawa said in Recurring C++ and Qt anti-patterns:
pointers where they make sense
That is the point (hehe) its an extremist group.
-
I tend to think of myself as a "moderate extremist": on the surface all agile, type-safe, and scope limiting...but in private I do stuff like macro-ize bitshift operations to save typing. My infatuation with pointers goes toward edumacating the noobs when they try to do large matrix processing using array indexes. It's like "hold my beer while I whack this kid"...and then I say "don't do that!"
-
@Chris-Kawa said in Recurring C++ and Qt anti-patterns:
IMO using std::reference_wrapper because you don't like those naked stars is just silly.
While I agree with you, it's rather funny (and somewhat ironic) such a class does exist.
The chant "pointers are bad", and even the more extreme "naked pointers are even badder" seems to have crept so ubiquitously into the way code's written (even moved past a fad I'd say) that we need a wrapper object to make assignable something which was designed into the language not to be, instead of simply passing by address ... strange world we live in ... -
-
@Bur8rus but...the C++ God himself himself wrote in the sacred texts that exceptions should be looked at as just another flow control route, and to not make any judgements other than that.
While in principle I agree with you, I'm glad my hands are not tied to keep me from committing an abomination like generic flow using exceptions.
-
