[PATCH] Loop refactoring

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 07/10/2020 à 16:31, Yuriy Skalko a écrit :
> And the last patch based on the static analyzers output.

I like that. I have to admit that I gave up checking that the loops were 
equivalent roughly at the first third of the patch :)

Is it done by hand or with some tool?

A few remarks, first on this archetypal example:

-	for (int i = 0; i < nb_simplefeatures; ++i) {
-		if (mustProvide(simplefeatures[i]))
-			packages << "\\usepackage{" << simplefeatures[i] << "}\n";
+	for (auto & feature : simplefeatures) {
+		if (mustProvide(feature))
+			packages << "\\usepackage{" << feature << "}\n";

0/ in this particular case, it seems to me that the variable 
nb_simplefeatures can be removed.

1/ I prefer an explict type name (char const * here) rather than auto, 
excecpt of course if the type is an ugly template expression. I find it 
more precise and easier to read).

2/ please constify those expression whenever possible.

There are also in the Qt part things like:

+				for (auto pcat : pcats) {

Is skipping the "const &" intended because of some Qt specifities?

On a different subject:

-	QPushButton * okay_;
-	QPushButton * apply_;
-	QPushButton * cancel_;
-	QPushButton * restore_;
-	QCheckBox * auto_apply_;
-	QPushButton * default_;
+	QPushButton * okay_{nullptr};
+	QPushButton * apply_{nullptr};
+	QPushButton * cancel_{nullptr};
+	QPushButton * restore_{nullptr};
+	QCheckBox * auto_apply_{nullptr};
+	QPushButton * default_{nullptr};


We use the form "= nullptr" in the source (for now). Any reason why the 
weird {} notation is better?

JMarc