Re: Create a module variable access system for C++ (issue 249920043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

On 2015/06/30 01:16:10, Dan Eble wrote:

> Neither one seems to be a problem with your change, although adding
"explicit"
> anyway shouldn't hurt.

Ok, I checked that neither in assignments nor initializations "ccc" goes
to SCM, and GCC does not even mention considering it: it just says that
it cannot convert const char * to SCM.  Neither does GCC consider the
use of a const char * as a function, and again the error message does
not even mention considering it.  So there does not appear to be _any_
actual improvement to be gained by using "explicit" apart from feeling
safer without reading through 3 chapters of the standard.  Which _is_ a
tangible benefit for the programmers if not the program.

However, "shouldn't hurt" is nice, but we don't have "explicit" anywhere
else in our code base and it is probably C++98 or something, not
"classic" C++.  That always has a bit of a risk for crossbuilding
LilyPond with GUB, or for others compiling it with older or different
compilers.  When using it because of the presence of operator SCM, there
would be several other unrelated classes which should also be getting
it.

So I'll leave this as a topic for a different issue.  It does not seem
necessary, carries some risk of problems of its own, and it would
warrant using across the board in our codebase, not just in this new
addition.

https://codereview.appspot.com/249920043/