Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #91163

Re: Is this safe?

Show key headers only | View raw

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/21/23 6:12 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not what you're asking, but the common convention in C++ is to
>>>>>> separate the type specification from the variable, i.e. `auto& c`
>>>>>> not `auto &c`.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But on the third and gripping hand, in this case I'd write `char&
>>>>>> c`, since there's no advantage in `auto` here and it obscures
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really.  This is a misleading "convention" that has no reason to
>>>>> exist.  In this case the `&` is a part of an individual declarator,
>>>>> not a part of decl-specifier-seq.  There's no reason to group the
>>>>> syntactic elements differently.  It achieves nothing.
>>>>
>>>> I would say it achieves less than nothing, because it's misleading.
>>>> It's like writing a+b * c ;  the grouping suggested by the spacing
>>>> doesn't match the actual precedence.  In almost all cases it's a
>>>> mistake to use "contra-syntactic" spacing, and attaching '&' or '*'
>>>> to a type specifier is definitely one of those mistakes.
>>>
>>> I prefer the "int *foo;" spacing (conventional in C) because it follows
>>> the syntax, but the "int* foo;" spacing has become a convention in C++
>>> (probably because Stroustrup uses it in his books), and I use it in C++
>>> for that reason.  I also avoid declarations where it would make a
>>> difference to a human reader, like "int* foo, bar;".
>>>
>>> Most development is on existing code.  It would be poor practice to use
>>> the "better" spacing on new code while leaving the existing code (which
>>> most likely uses the C++ conventional spacing) as it is.  It would also
>>> be poor practice to change all the spacing in a large body of existing
>>> code.
>>
>> I'm sure there are lots of people who agree with that opinion,
>> but that doesn't make it anything more than just an opinion.
>
> Obviously.
>
> Did you have anything *useful* to add?

As a rule I don't like to participate in discussions of programming
style that are purely subjective.

I object to assertions that are solely statements of opinion being
made as though they were something more than that.

When you have something to say that is more than simply statements
of personal opinion, then I expect I might have something useful
to say about it.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 09:22 -0700
  Re: Is this safe? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 16:42 -0700
    Re: Is this safe? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-08 05:46 -0700

csiph-web