On: Google C++ Style Guide Is No Good

[stdplaceholder]

It's ambiguous in the article, and it's not specifically mentioned in the Google C++ Style Guide, but during code review at Google it's likely that a reviewer will object to this code:

  std::vector<int> v;
  v.resize(10, 42);

That form of std::vector::resize is discouraged because nobody can remember which argument is which. A reviewer would probably prefer:

  std::vector<int> v(10);
  std::fill(v.begin(), v.end(), 42);

Or even

  std::vector<int> v{42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42, 42};

I have some other quibbles with this article

* "Not marking it inline is a sure way to prevent inlining" is totally wrong) * The bit about using-directives is also pretty wrong. See https://abseil.io/tips/153 for why. And the example the author gives is terrible:

  void foo() {
    using namespace std::placeholders;
    std::bind(bar, _1, 2);

This doesn't even need a using-directive.

  void foo() {
    using std::placeholders::_1;
    std::bind(bar, _1, 2);

It's shorter, even.

To summarize, the Google C++ Style Guide is there to assist reviewers in reviewing new code. Contrary to what the author thinks, the guide doesn't prescribe anything. At Google decisions are always left to the reviewer. Read the Abseil libraries to see how the style guide applies and when it is ignored.

[Jyaif → stdplaceholder]

You'd never see `v.resize(10, 42);` because 10 and 42 would be in self-documenting variables, e.g.

```

int kDefaultValue = 42;

size_type kExpectedSize = 10;

v.resize(kExpectedSize, kDefaultValue);

```

[wyldfire → Jyaif]

...though in this case it's still the reviewers job to help understand what the code does and if the reviewer doesn't know for sure which arg comes first then they still can't easily check that the code does what's intended.

[AstralStorm → wyldfire]

The guide should then specify some common instances where arguments may be flipped.