什么是你的typedef'ing shared_ptr的约定？ [英] What's your convention for typedef'ing shared_ptr?

问题描述

我命名约定typedef'ing了boost :: shared_ptr的模板之间的倒装假摔。例如：

I'm flip-flopping between naming conventions for typedef'ing the boost::shared_ptr template. For example:

typedef boost::shared_ptr<Foo> FooPtr;

解决一项公约之前，我想看看别人用什么。你的习惯是什么？

Before settling on a convention, I'd like to see what others use. What is your convention?

编辑：

对于那些内嵌套的富类型定义，不烦你，美孚现在是如何将其传递意识？这似乎打破封装。这个怎么样：

To those nesting the typedef inside Foo, doesn't it bother you that Foo is now "aware" of how it will be passed around? It seems to break encapsulation. How about this:

class Foo
{
public:
    typedef std::vector<Foo> Vector
};

您现在就不会做到这一点，你会吗？ ： - ）

You wouldn't do this now, would you? :-)

推荐答案

答：不这样做。它的方便，为您和其他人。说你是什么意思。

Answer: don't do it. It's convenient for you and nobody else. Say what you mean.

这篇关于什么是你的typedef'ing shared_ptr的约定？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！