How to CPP for IRCd

In the post-C++11 world it is time to leave C99+ behind and seriously consider C++ as C proper. It has been a hard 30 year journey to finally earn that, but now it is time. This document is the effective style guide for how Charybdis will integrate -std=gnu++14 and how developers should approach it.

C++ With Respect For C People

Remember your C heritage. There is nothing wrong with C, it is just incomplete. There is also no overhead with C++, that is a myth. If you write C code in C++ it will be the same C code. Think about it like this: if C is like a bunch of macros on assembly, C++ is a bunch of macros on C. This guide will not address any more myths and for that we refer you here.

Repeat the following mantra:

How would I do this in C?
Why is that dangerous, hacky, or ugly?
What feature does C++ offer to do it right?

This can be applied to many real patterns seen in C software which really beg for something C++ did to make it legitimate and proper. Examples:

Leading several structures with the same member, then casting to that leading type to deal with the structure abstractly for container insertion. -> Think inheritance.
Creating a structure with a bunch of function pointers, then having a user of the structure fill in the pointers with their own functionality. -> Think virtual functions.

Encapsulation will be relaxed

To summarize, most structures will default to being fully public unless there is a very pressing reason to create a private section. Such a reason is not "the user could break something by touching this," instead it is "the user will only ever break something by touching this."

Do not use the keyword class unless your sole intent is to have the members immediately following it be private.
Using class followed by a public: label is nubile.

Direct initialization

Use = only for assignment to an existing object. Break your C habit right now. Use bracket initialization {} of all variables and objects. Fall back to parens () if brackets conflict with an initializer_list constructor (such as with STL containers) or if absolutely necessary to quash warnings about conversions.

Do not put uninitialized variables at the top of a function and assign them later.

Quick note to preempt a confusion for C people: Initialization in C++ is like C but you don't have to use the =.
struct user { const char *nick; };
struct user you = {"you"};
user me {"me"};

Use Allman style for complex/long initialization statements. It's like a function returning the value to your new object; it is easier to read than one giant line.

const auto sum
{
    1 + (2 + (3 * 4) + 5) + 6
};

Use full const correctness

const correctness should extend to all variables, pointers, arguments, and functions- not just "pointed-to" data. If it can be const then make it const and relax it later if necessary.

Use auto

Use auto whenever it is possible to use it; specify a type when you must. If the compiler can't figure out the auto, that's when you indicate the type.

RAII will be in full force

All variables, whether they're function-local, class-members, even globals, must always be under some protection at all times. There must be the expectation at absolutely any point including between those points everything will blow up randomly and the protection will be invoked to back-out the way you came. That is, essentially, the juice of why we are here.

This is really serious business. You have to do one thing at a time. When you move on to the next thing the last thing has to have already fully succeeded or fully failed. Everything is a transaction. Nothing in the future exists. There is nothing you need from the future to give things a consistent state.

The program should be effectively reversible -- should be able to "go backwards" or "unwind" from any point. Think in terms of stacks, not linear procedures. This means when a variable, or member (a resource) first comes into scope, i.e. it is declared or accessible (acquired), it must be initialized to a completely consistent state at that point.
Window shade analogy:

Imagine pulling down a window shade to hide the sun. As you pull down, the canvas unrolls from its spool at the top. Your goal is to hook the shade on to the nail at the bottom of the window: that is a commitment. If you slip and let go, the shade will roll back up into the spool at the top: that is an exception.

What you can't do is prepare work on the way down which needs any further pulling to be in a consistent state and not leak. You might slip and let go at any time for any reason. A malloc() on one line and a free() following it is an example of requiring more pulling.

Indeed slipping and letting go is an accident -- but the point is that accidents happen. They're not always your fault, and many times are outside of your control. This is a good approach for robust and durable code over long-lived large-scale projects.

Exceptions will be used

Wait, you were trolling "respect for C people" right? No. If you viewed the above section merely through the prism avoiding classic memory leaks, and can foresee how to now write stackful, reversible, protected programs without even calling free() or delete: you not only have earned the right, but you have to use exceptions. This is no longer a matter of arguing for or against if() statement clutter and checking return types and passing errors down the stack.

Object construction (logic in the initialization list, constructor body, etc) is actual real program logic. Object construction is not something to just prepare some memory, like initializing it to zero, leaving an instance somewhere for further functions to conduct operations on. Your whole program could be running - the entire universe could be running - in some member initializer somewhere. The only way to error out of this is to throw, and it is perfectly legitimate to do so.
Function bodies and return types should not be concerned with error handling and passing of such. They only cause and generate the errors.
Try/catch style note: We specifically discourage naked try/catch blocks. In other words, most try-catch blocks are of the function-try-catch variety. The style is simply to piggyback the try/catch where another block would have been.

while(foo) try
{
    ...
}
catch(exception)
{
}

We extend this demotion style of keywords to do as well, which should avoid having its own line if possible.

int x; do
{
    ...
}
while((x = foo());

Pointers and References

The & or * prefixes the variable name; it does not postfix the type. This is evidenced by comma-delimited declarations. There is only one exception to this for universal references which is described later.

int a, &b{a}, *c{&b}, *const d{&b}, *const *const e{&c};

Biblical maxim: Use references when you can, pointers when you must.
Pass arguments by const reference const foo &bar preferably, non-const reference foo &bar if you must.
Use const references even if you're not referring to anything created yet. const references can construct, contain, and refer to an instance of the type with all in one magic. This style has no sympathy for erroneously expecting that a const reference is not a local construction; expert C++ developers do not make this error. See reasons for using a pointer below.
Passing by value indicates some kind of need for object construction in the argument, or that something may be std::move()'ed to and from it. Except for some common patterns, this is generally suspect.
Passing to a function with an rvalue reference argument foo &&bar indicates something will be std::move()'ed to it, and ownership is now acquired by that function.
In a function with a template template<class foo>, an rvalue reference in the prototype for something in the template void func(foo &&bar) is actually a universal reference which has some differences from a normal rvalue reference. To make this clear our style is to move the && like so void func(foo&& bar). This is actually useful because a variadic template foo template<class... foo> will require the prototype void func(foo&&... bar).
Passing a pointer, or pointer arguments in general, indicates something may be null (optional), or to explicitly prevent local const construction which is a rare reason. Otherwise suspect.
Avoid using references as object members, you're most likely just limiting the ability to assign, move, and reuse the object because references cannot be reseated; then the "~~big three~~" "big five" custom constructors have to be created and maintained, and it becomes an unnecessary mess.

Miscellaneous

new and delete should rarely if ever be seen. This is more true than ever with C++14 std::make_unique() and std::make_shared().
We allow some C-style arrays, especially on the stack, even C99 dynamic sized ones; there's no problem here, just be responsible.
std::array is preferred for object members; also just generally preferred.
C format strings are still acceptable. This is an IRC project, with heavy use of strings and complex formats and all the stringencies. We even have our own custom protocol safe format string library, and that should be used where possible.
streams and standard streams are generally avoided in this project. We could have have taken the direction to customize C++'s stream interface to make it performant, but otherwise the streams are generally slow and heavy. Instead we chose a more classical approach with format strings and buffers -- but without sacrificing type safety with our RTTI-based fmt library.
~~varargs are still legitimate.~~ There are just many cases when template varargs, now being available, are a better choice; they can also be inlined.
- Our template va_rtti is starting to emerge as a suitable replacement for any use of varags.
When using a switch over an enum type, put what would be the default case after/outside of the switch unless the situation specifically calls for one. We use -Wswitch so changes to the enum will provide a good warning to update any switch.
Prototypes should name their argument variables to make them easier to understand, except if such a name is redundant because the type carries enough information to make it obvious. In other words, if you have a prototype like foo(const std::string &message) you should name message because std::string is common and what the string is for is otherwise opaque. OTOH, if you have foo(const options &options, const std::string &message) one should skip the name for options & as it just adds redundant text to the prototype.

11 KiB Raw Blame History