On 04/02/2015 10:40 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 2 Apr 2015 at 21:59, Vladimir Prus wrote:
thanks for clarifications, I indeed initially misunderstood your suggestion. What you propose, a certain minimum level of quality/testing to demand, seems quite reasonable to me.
Just to clarify a bit further, somewhere in my archives I drew up a list of 21 things a Boost library must have which were probably easy to check using libclang. Naming conventions, proper use of a DECL macro for visibility, proper use of the virtual keyword and so on.
My only real concern really is why keep such tooling Boost only when it could be contributed to the clang static analyser. It's also boring and tedious work writing and debugging such "style checkers". I also feel surprise that no corporate sponsor hasn't sponsored such tooling yet, and that makes me suspicious if they are as easy to implement as I think.
I'm not really surprised about that part - selling tools is generally hard, especially targeting less tangible aspects like quality, especially addressing third-party open-source products. It's not like corporations have budgets specifically for helping open-source projects they use. - Volodya -- Vladimir Prus CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://vladimirprus.com