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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #91172

Re: Is this safe?

Show key headers only | View raw

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:
>>> 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.

Then by all means don't.

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

I don't believe I did that.  What I wrote (several months ago)
was partly my opinion, partly what I believe to be facts.  I did
not intend to present it as anything else.  (And I don't think what
I wrote was particularly controversial.)

> 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.

If you have nothing useful to say, as appears to be the case here, I
suggest saying nothing.

Should I configure my newsreader to add an "X-In-My-Opinion:"
header to everything I post?  (To be clear, I will not do so.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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