[HarfBuzz] [PATCH] Implement threading primitives on Windows; fix compile error and leak

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On 05/05/11 13:54, Ed wrote:
> Hi, Behdad,

Hi Ed,


> As far as I am aware --please correct me if I am wrong-- the current
> HarfBuzz NG code relies entirely on C-style "structs" and seems to
> eschew implementing "true" C++ classes (i.e., those with
> compiler-enforced private members, explicit user-defined constructors
> and destructors, etc., (as opposed to "structs" which can be defined
> as a more limited subset of "classes" where all members are public)).

That's not entirety true.  We use as much as C++ as we can afford.

For now, the rule is: no linking to libstdc++.  And I'm religious about that
one.  Other than that, I've been freely using private, protected, templates,
etc.  Still avoiding virtual, constructors and destructors where they make
memory management harder.  But where they ease it, by all means, I'm already
using them.


> So I assumed that HarfBuzz NG was not actually using C++ at all --and
> that perhaps the reason was to insure the possibility of compilation
> in some sort of embedded device environments where C++ compilers are
> not used ... or something like that.

As I said, the rule's simple: no libstdc++ linkage.  Other than that, if it
compiles with g++, and compiles with MSVC, it's good enough.


> But now you are saying that HarfBuzz is using C++.  So, if that is the
> case, then why are you not using a code development model that takes
> full advantage of C++ and do precisely things like "use constructors
> to initialize static mutexes automatically", inter alia ?  And why not
> take advantage of other aspects that C++ provides, like true private
> and protected members?

I already do, in a lot of the code if you take a look.  For some structs I
don't mark private members because we have static instances of those, and you
can't have a static initializer for a class with private/protected members.


> That's one question.
> 
> But a related valid question is: would you accept contributions to the
> code base that do utilize true C++ classes featuring things like
> constructors, destructors, protected and private members, despite the
> fact that such contributions would differ in coding style from what
> you are currently creating?

You're right that my coding style in HarfBuzz is indeed that of a C
programmer, freely using C++ features when more convenient.  I don't
categorically reject other code styles, though I really like tight code, and
will say so if I see otherwise.

Cheers,
behdad

> Best - Ed