Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87753 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-12-08 12:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-01-04 00:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 333 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-08 12:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-12-08 15:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-08 15:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-12-08 19:29 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-09 15:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-09 12:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-09 05:03 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-09 14:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 06:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-12-17 16:53 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-08 07:59 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-09 12:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-09 07:57 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-09 17:44 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-09 21:01 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-09 20:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-10 14:48 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-10 21:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 00:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-11 14:37 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 09:35 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-11 16:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-09 13:07 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 08:54 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 11:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 16:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 15:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2022-12-12 22:02 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-12 22:41 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:00 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-12-13 02:48 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 00:03 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-13 14:39 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 14:10 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-13 14:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 13:07 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 08:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 17:50 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 20:01 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 18:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 10:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 08:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 01:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 14:31 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 13:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 09:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 10:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 11:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-13 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 06:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 07:36 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:43 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 12:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 12:17 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 08:53 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 21:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-17 15:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:27 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:32 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:46 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 14:55 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:03 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:54 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tony Oliver <guinness.tony@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 16:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:18 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-20 14:51 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 08:23 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:52 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:56 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ralf Goertz <me@myprovider.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:22 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:05 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:37 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 19:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 14:28 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 15:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 18:33 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 09:45 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-20 20:29 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 10:26 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:40 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-12-21 11:12 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-21 17:22 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 16:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-12-21 12:02 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 17:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:24 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 10:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:05 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 11:13 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 16:19 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:00 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 10:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:11 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 13:05 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-19 16:55 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 18:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 10:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-12-19 22:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:23 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-20 10:22 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:39 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 21:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 13:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-31 15:00 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-31 16:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-31 14:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 17:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 07:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jack Lemmon <invalid@invalid.net> - 2022-12-31 18:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-31 14:46 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 06:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-03 01:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 10:05 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-03 10:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 11:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-03 15:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 07:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 23:29 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 23:30 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 08:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-04 22:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-05 09:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-05 16:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-06 13:02 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-06 14:31 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-05 16:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-06 13:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-06 16:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-09 05:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-09 00:45 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-09 13:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-10 05:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-09 22:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-10 11:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-10 03:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 16:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-10 07:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 09:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-10 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 21:38 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-10 12:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-11 05:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-11 09:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-13 07:51 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-13 10:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-13 12:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-13 14:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 06:18 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-14 07:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-16 11:17 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-24 07:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 09:35 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 03:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-13 16:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-11 13:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 23:23 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 23:26 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 09:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 11:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 11:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 13:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 10:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 15:57 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 16:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 22:31 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:41 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 11:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 13:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-12-21 20:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-21 14:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 12:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-22 20:43 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-23 10:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-23 19:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 19:30 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 12:28 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:30 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 16:50 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:01 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 09:40 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 12:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:47 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 16:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 18:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 10:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 01:01 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:44 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 10:30 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:46 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 12:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 13:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 05:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:05 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 11:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 11:53 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:44 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:43 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-15 07:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:39 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-19 05:27 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:55 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 03:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 12:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-20 14:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 20:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 08:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:30 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 22:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 08:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 11:07 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 13:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 12:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-22 16:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 06:43 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 18:43 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:06 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 22:14 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 22:26 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 10:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:18 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-12 09:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-12 16:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 08:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-13 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 11:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:33 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:16 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-14 11:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 09:40 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-14 22:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 10:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-09 13:05 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 12:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:27 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 15:25 -0600
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-12-10 16:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 15:39 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 09:49 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 11:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 20:03 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 09:06 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:39 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 07:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:46 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 07:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 18:39 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 11:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 16:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 14:31 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:04 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 00:33 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 01:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:51 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:53 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 20:08 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 11:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 13:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-12-15 22:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:29 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 08:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:23 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-14 08:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 23:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-12-17 21:01 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 09:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:48 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 16:06 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 21:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:12 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 07:22 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:39 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:59 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 00:19 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 00:22 -0800
Page 16 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-11 14:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tn5lnk$213bm$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87753 |
On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > During the last few years I have had to read an inordinate amount of > code written by other people. It has really given me a big insight on > what makes code more and less readable and understandable. For example, > I could write an entire book on naming conventions alone, and how they > can make the code so much more readable, or make it almost inscrutable. > > But another thing I have really learned to hate is the overuse of the > 'auto' keyword. I have always opposed its needless overuse, but this > couple of years of reading other people's code has really confirmed > and cemented my previous opinion on it. > > Some C++ programmers do not use 'auto' merely to save some typing, > as some kind of convenience feature. They go their way to use it > pretty much everywhere they can, even when it doesn't actually save > any typing or make anything more convenient. They use it like it were > the generic variable declaration keyword in many other languages > (quite typically "var"). > > The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of someone > who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When > you see something like: > > auto foobar = someFunction(a, b) [...] Indeed. I find myself instantly looking for the declaration of someFunction so I can make a note... foobar = a pointer to foobaz.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 16:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tn8fi6$2av6s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87753 |
On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> During the last few years I have had to read an inordinate amount of
> code written by other people. It has really given me a big insight on
> what makes code more and less readable and understandable. For example,
> I could write an entire book on naming conventions alone, and how they
> can make the code so much more readable, or make it almost inscrutable.
>
> But another thing I have really learned to hate is the overuse of the
> 'auto' keyword. I have always opposed its needless overuse, but this
> couple of years of reading other people's code has really confirmed
> and cemented my previous opinion on it.
>
> Some C++ programmers do not use 'auto' merely to save some typing,
> as some kind of convenience feature. They go their way to use it
> pretty much everywhere they can, even when it doesn't actually save
> any typing or make anything more convenient. They use it like it were
> the generic variable declaration keyword in many other languages
> (quite typically "var").
>
> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of someone
> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
> you see something like:
>
> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
[...]
What about:
auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
foobar->execute();
Well, what the hell does execute do?
struct missile_command
{
void execute() { // FIRE! }
};
Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit happens.
Time to go into the bunker...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-13 00:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87ilig3zx4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #87840 |
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
<cut>
>> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of someone
>> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
>> you see something like:
>> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
> [...]
>
> What about:
>
> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
> foobar->execute();
>
>
> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>
> struct missile_command
> {
> void execute() { // FIRE! }
> };
>
> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
These sorts of example are pure polemic since much of the problem in
comprehension comes from the names not the types.
auto missile = getLaunchAuthority(nominatedPerson1, nominatedPerson2);
missile->launch();
Clearer?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 17:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tn8jkh$2b56h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87841 |
On 12/12/2022 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> <cut>
>>> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of someone
>>> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
>>> you see something like:
>>> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
>> [...]
>>
>> What about:
>>
>> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
>> foobar->execute();
>>
>>
>> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>>
>> struct missile_command
>> {
>> void execute() { // FIRE! }
>> };
>>
>> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
>> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
>
> These sorts of example are pure polemic since much of the problem in
> comprehension comes from the names not the types.
Keep in mind that foobar could be a nullptr! Thank god.
>
> auto missile = getLaunchAuthority(nominatedPerson1, nominatedPerson2);
> missile->launch();
>
> Clearer?
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 17:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tn8k9f$2b899$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87842 |
On 12/12/2022 5:13 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> <cut>
>>>> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of someone
>>>> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
>>>> you see something like:
>>>> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> What about:
>>>
>>> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
>>> foobar->execute();
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>>>
>>> struct missile_command
>>> {
>>> void execute() { // FIRE! }
>>> };
>>>
>>> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
>>> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
Ben keep in mind that missle_command is different than missile_command.
struct missle_command
{
void execute() { // Tell subs to launch. }
};
What auto is the right one?
>>
>> These sorts of example are pure polemic since much of the problem in
>> comprehension comes from the names not the types.
>
> Keep in mind that foobar could be a nullptr! Thank god.
>
>
>>
>> auto missile = getLaunchAuthority(nominatedPerson1, nominatedPerson2);
>> missile->launch();
>>
>> Clearer?
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-13 01:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <877cyw3whl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #87843 |
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> On 12/12/2022 5:13 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 12/12/2022 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>> <cut>
>>>>> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of someone
>>>>> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
>>>>> you see something like:
>>>>> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> What about:
>>>>
>>>> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
>>>> foobar->execute();
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>>>>
>>>> struct missile_command
>>>> {
>>>> void execute() { // FIRE! }
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
>>>> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
>
> Ben keep in mind that missle_command is different than missile_command.
>
> struct missle_command
> {
> void execute() { // Tell subs to launch. }
> };
>
> What auto is the right one?
What has this got to do with the point I was making?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 17:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tn8lm1$2bas3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87845 |
On 12/12/2022 5:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/12/2022 5:13 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2022 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>>> <cut>
>>>>>> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of someone
>>>>>> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
>>>>>> you see something like:
>>>>>> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> What about:
>>>>>
>>>>> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
>>>>> foobar->execute();
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>>>>>
>>>>> struct missile_command
>>>>> {
>>>>> void execute() { // FIRE! }
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
>>>>> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
>>
>> Ben keep in mind that missle_command is different than missile_command.
>>
>> struct missle_command
>> {
>> void execute() { // Tell subs to launch. }
>> };
>>
>> What auto is the right one?
>
> What has this got to do with the point I was making?
>
In my very personal and humble opinion, auto has the ability to send a
chill up my spine...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 19:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tn8sla$2ej0v$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87842 |
On 12/12/2022 5:13 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> <cut>
>>>> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of someone
>>>> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
>>>> you see something like:
>>>> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> What about:
>>>
>>> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
>>> foobar->execute();
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>>>
>>> struct missile_command
>>> {
>>> void execute() { // FIRE! }
>>> };
>>>
>>> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
>>> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
>>
>> These sorts of example are pure polemic since much of the problem in
>> comprehension comes from the names not the types.
>
> Keep in mind that foobar could be a nullptr! Thank god.
>
>
>>
>> auto missile = getLaunchAuthority(nominatedPerson1, nominatedPerson2);
>> missile->launch();
Ahh, you meant getLaunchAuthoritySub right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 19:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tn8sr5$2ej0v$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87847 |
On 12/12/2022 7:47 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 5:13 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 12/12/2022 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>> <cut>
>>>>> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of
>>>>> someone
>>>>> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
>>>>> you see something like:
>>>>> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> What about:
>>>>
>>>> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
>>>> foobar->execute();
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>>>>
>>>> struct missile_command
>>>> {
>>>> void execute() { // FIRE! }
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
>>>> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
>>>
>>> These sorts of example are pure polemic since much of the problem in
>>> comprehension comes from the names not the types.
>>
>> Keep in mind that foobar could be a nullptr! Thank god.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> auto missile = getLaunchAuthority(nominatedPerson1, nominatedPerson2);
>>> missile->launch();
>
> Ahh, you meant getLaunchAuthoritySub right?
>
>
getLaunchAuthority for what?
getLaunchAuthority_Anti_Satellite
Or,
auto auth = create_launch_authority_sam_sites(nominatedPerson1,
nominatedPerson2);
if (auth)
{
launch(auth);
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 19:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tn8t04$2ej0v$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87848 |
On 12/12/2022 7:51 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 7:47 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 12/12/2022 5:13 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2022 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>>> <cut>
>>>>>> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of
>>>>>> someone
>>>>>> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
>>>>>> you see something like:
>>>>>> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> What about:
>>>>>
>>>>> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
>>>>> foobar->execute();
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>>>>>
>>>>> struct missile_command
>>>>> {
>>>>> void execute() { // FIRE! }
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
>>>>> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
>>>>
>>>> These sorts of example are pure polemic since much of the problem in
>>>> comprehension comes from the names not the types.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that foobar could be a nullptr! Thank god.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> auto missile = getLaunchAuthority(nominatedPerson1, nominatedPerson2);
>>>> missile->launch();
>>
>> Ahh, you meant getLaunchAuthoritySub right?
>>
>>
>
> getLaunchAuthority for what?
>
> getLaunchAuthority_Anti_Satellite
>
> Or,
>
> auto auth = create_launch_authority_sam_sites(nominatedPerson1,
> nominatedPerson2);
>
> if (auth)
> {
> launch(auth);
> }
>
>
lanuch(auth) vs launch_at_will_commander(auth).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-12 20:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tn8tso$2ej0v$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87841 |
On 12/12/2022 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> <cut>
>>> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of someone
>>> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
>>> you see something like:
>>> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
>> [...]
>>
>> What about:
>>
>> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
>> foobar->execute();
>>
>>
>> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>>
>> struct missile_command
>> {
>> void execute() { // FIRE! }
>> };
>>
>> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
>> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
>
> These sorts of example are pure polemic since much of the problem in
> comprehension comes from the names not the types.
>
> auto missile = getLaunchAuthority(nominatedPerson1, nominatedPerson2);
> missile->launch();
>
> Clearer?
>
You still forgot to check for nullptr:
if (missile) missile->launch();
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-13 11:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87pmcn354f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #87850 |
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
> On 12/12/2022 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> <cut>
>>>> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of someone
>>>> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
>>>> you see something like:
>>>> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> What about:
>>>
>>> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
>>> foobar->execute();
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>>>
>>> struct missile_command
>>> {
>>> void execute() { // FIRE! }
>>> };
>>>
>>> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
>>> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
>> These sorts of example are pure polemic since much of the problem in
>> comprehension comes from the names not the types.
>> auto missile = getLaunchAuthority(nominatedPerson1, nominatedPerson2);
>> missile->launch();
>> Clearer?
>
> You still forgot to check for nullptr:
So did you. I left that unaddressed because it has nothing to do with
my point. Once again, examples like yours (with or without the nullptr
side issues) don't help because, very often, the confusion comes from
the neutral and unhelpful names rather than the language feature (in
that case auto) that is being discussed.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-13 13:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tnapmb$2jff0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87863 |
On 12/13/2022 3:38 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/12/2022 4:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 12/8/2022 4:31 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>> <cut>
>>>>> The problem in using 'auto' everywhere, from the perspective of someone
>>>>> who is reading the code, is that it hides the type in question. When
>>>>> you see something like:
>>>>> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b);
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> What about:
>>>>
>>>> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
>>>> foobar->execute();
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>>>>
>>>> struct missile_command
>>>> {
>>>> void execute() { // FIRE! }
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
>>>> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
>>> These sorts of example are pure polemic since much of the problem in
>>> comprehension comes from the names not the types.
>>> auto missile = getLaunchAuthority(nominatedPerson1, nominatedPerson2);
>>> missile->launch();
>>> Clearer?
>>
>> You still forgot to check for nullptr:
>
> So did you.
Indeed! :^)
> I left that unaddressed because it has nothing to do with
> my point. Once again, examples like yours (with or without the nullptr
> side issues) don't help because, very often, the confusion comes from
> the neutral and unhelpful names rather than the language feature (in
> that case auto) that is being discussed.
>
Humm... Okay, I think that is fair enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-15 22:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tng3jj$35rah$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87840 |
Am 13.12.22 um 01:04 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> What about:
>
> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
> foobar->execute();
>
>
> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>
> struct missile_command
> {
> void execute() { // FIRE! }
> };
>
>
> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit happens.
> Time to go into the bunker...
Why do you need auto here?
foobaz(a, b) -> execute();
You're basically saying that polymorphism is a bad thing. Anything could
happen! Just like operator overloading. What a mess, a*b can format your
hard drive!!!
Abusus non tollit usum.
Christian
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-15 18:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tngl6i$373l0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87967 |
On 12/15/2022 1:29 PM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Am 13.12.22 um 01:04 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>> What about:
>>
>> auto foobar = foobaz(a, b);
>> foobar->execute();
>>
>>
>> Well, what the hell does execute do?
>>
>> struct missile_command
>> {
>> void execute() { // FIRE! }
>> };
>>
>>
>> Oh shit! foobaz returns a pointer to missle_command, well, shit
>> happens. Time to go into the bunker...
>
>
> Why do you need auto here?
I would never use auto here. The overuse of auto is not good.
> foobaz(a, b) -> execute();
>
> You're basically saying that polymorphism is a bad thing.
Not at all. This is an example where I would not use auto.
missile_command* ret = foobaz(a, b);
if (ret)
{
ret->execute();
}
Is a lot more clear than:
auto ret = foobaz(a, b);
if (ret)
{
ret->execute();
}
> Anything could
> happen! Just like operator overloading. What a mess, a*b can format your
> hard drive!!!
>
> Abusus non tollit usum.
>
> Christian
>
>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 08:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnc21r$1e6v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87753 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: > During the last few years I have had to read an inordinate amount of > code written by other people. It has really given me a big insight on > what makes code more and less readable and understandable. For example, > I could write an entire book on naming conventions alone, and how they > can make the code so much more readable, or make it almost inscrutable. I am reminded of this painful fact right today because I am, once again, reviewing code written by other people. Code that's full of cryptic inscrutable acronyms and abbreviations that make it infuriatingly hard to understand what the code is doing. The problem that the vast majority of programmers have is that when they are writing code it's extremely clear *to them* what each variable means and what its role is. However, to a third-party reader who is reading the code for the first time it's not necessarily so. The second problem is that people, for some reason, instinctively want to write names that are as short as possible, as contracted and abbreviated as possible, as compressed as possible, just to save typing a few characters. The problem is that when they are writing some kind of algorithm, the algorithm itself, and each variable, is clear to the programmer who is writing the code, but may not be clear at all to a third-party reader. Thus you end up with cryptic acronyms like "tpl" and "tpr" and the like. What are those supposed to mean? Maybe "l" stands for "left" and "r" stands for "right"? Turns out that they are supposed to stand for "test point left" and "test point right". Finding that out is extra difficult because of the code that initializes them is likewise cryptic, something along the lines of "tpl = l.p;" which says nothing. What's with this obsession with brevity? It makes code needlessly inscrutable and cryptic for absolutely no benefit. There's literally no reason why those acronyms couldn't be fully spelled out, using full English words. "test_point_left" and "test_point_right" are so much more readable and understandable. They immediately tell the reader what they are supposed to be, and the reader doesn't have to try to solve the puzzle of what "tpl" stands for by trying to decipher the rest of the likewise-cryptic code. Some people will still oppose this, for some reason. But you cannot change what I am seeing. You are not going to make this code more readable no matter how many times you repeat that the cryptic acronyms are actually the ones that are more readable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 14:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tncinl$2q433$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87887 |
On 14/12/2022 09:38, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >> During the last few years I have had to read an inordinate amount of >> code written by other people. It has really given me a big insight on >> what makes code more and less readable and understandable. For example, >> I could write an entire book on naming conventions alone, and how they >> can make the code so much more readable, or make it almost inscrutable. > > I am reminded of this painful fact right today because I am, once again, > reviewing code written by other people. Code that's full of cryptic > inscrutable acronyms and abbreviations that make it infuriatingly hard > to understand what the code is doing. > > The problem that the vast majority of programmers have is that when they > are writing code it's extremely clear *to them* what each variable means > and what its role is. However, to a third-party reader who is reading the > code for the first time it's not necessarily so. > > The second problem is that people, for some reason, instinctively want to > write names that are as short as possible, as contracted and abbreviated > as possible, as compressed as possible, just to save typing a few > characters. > I also happen to be working with code written by others today. The code is a pile of dodo doo-doo. Most of the identifiers have long and expressive names, but it is still crap code, and still incomprehensible. I don't think shorter names would have helped much, but they might have made the code a little more readable in some places - code that is logically one line would not have been spread over two physical lines. Still, naming choices are not in the top ten problems with the code. I really think if acronyms and short names are the biggest issue you have with other people's code, either it is very unusual code or you are missing the most important problems, such as poor structure or overly long functions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 08:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3b323c60-b8af-41b5-82ff-43b2f4d4e5f6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #87906 |
On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 3:23:19 PM UTC+2, David Brown wrote: > On 14/12/2022 09:38, Juha Nieminen wrote: > > Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote: > >> During the last few years I have had to read an inordinate amount of > >> code written by other people. It has really given me a big insight on > >> what makes code more and less readable and understandable. For example, > >> I could write an entire book on naming conventions alone, and how they > >> can make the code so much more readable, or make it almost inscrutable. > > > > I am reminded of this painful fact right today because I am, once again, > > reviewing code written by other people. Code that's full of cryptic > > inscrutable acronyms and abbreviations that make it infuriatingly hard > > to understand what the code is doing. > > > > The problem that the vast majority of programmers have is that when they > > are writing code it's extremely clear *to them* what each variable means > > and what its role is. However, to a third-party reader who is reading the > > code for the first time it's not necessarily so. > > > > The second problem is that people, for some reason, instinctively want to > > write names that are as short as possible, as contracted and abbreviated > > as possible, as compressed as possible, just to save typing a few > > characters. > > > I also happen to be working with code written by others today. The code > is a pile of dodo doo-doo. "Hell is other people's code" > Most of the identifiers have long and > expressive names, but it is still crap code, and still incomprehensible. > I don't think shorter names would have helped much, but they might > have made the code a little more readable in some places - code that is > logically one line would not have been spread over two physical lines. > > Still, naming choices are not in the top ten problems with the code. > > I really think if acronyms and short names are the biggest issue you > have with other people's code, either it is very unusual code or you are > missing the most important problems, such as poor structure or overly > long functions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 23:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tnei5h$31ls8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87915 |
On 12/14/2022 8:36 AM, Michael S wrote: > On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 3:23:19 PM UTC+2, David Brown wrote: >> On 14/12/2022 09:38, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>> Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>>> During the last few years I have had to read an inordinate amount of >>>> code written by other people. It has really given me a big insight on >>>> what makes code more and less readable and understandable. For example, >>>> I could write an entire book on naming conventions alone, and how they >>>> can make the code so much more readable, or make it almost inscrutable. >>> >>> I am reminded of this painful fact right today because I am, once again, >>> reviewing code written by other people. Code that's full of cryptic >>> inscrutable acronyms and abbreviations that make it infuriatingly hard >>> to understand what the code is doing. >>> >>> The problem that the vast majority of programmers have is that when they >>> are writing code it's extremely clear *to them* what each variable means >>> and what its role is. However, to a third-party reader who is reading the >>> code for the first time it's not necessarily so. >>> >>> The second problem is that people, for some reason, instinctively want to >>> write names that are as short as possible, as contracted and abbreviated >>> as possible, as compressed as possible, just to save typing a few >>> characters. >>> >> I also happen to be working with code written by others today. The code >> is a pile of dodo doo-doo. > > "Hell is other people's code" Big time! [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-17 21:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrntpsbgj.h7h.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #87887 |
On Wed, 2022-12-14, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >> During the last few years I have had to read an inordinate amount of >> code written by other people. It has really given me a big insight on >> what makes code more and less readable and understandable. For example, >> I could write an entire book on naming conventions alone, and how they >> can make the code so much more readable, or make it almost inscrutable. > > I am reminded of this painful fact right today because I am, once again, > reviewing code written by other people. Code that's full of cryptic > inscrutable acronyms and abbreviations that make it infuriatingly hard > to understand what the code is doing. > > The problem that the vast majority of programmers have is that when they > are writing code it's extremely clear *to them* what each variable means > and what its role is. However, to a third-party reader who is reading the > code for the first time it's not necessarily so. > > The second problem is that people, for some reason, instinctively want to > write names that are as short as possible, as contracted and abbreviated > as possible, as compressed as possible, just to save typing a few > characters. > > The problem is that when they are writing some kind of algorithm, the > algorithm itself, and each variable, is clear to the programmer who is > writing the code, but may not be clear at all to a third-party reader. > > Thus you end up with cryptic acronyms like "tpl" and "tpr" and the like. > What are those supposed to mean? Maybe "l" stands for "left" and "r" > stands for "right"? > > Turns out that they are supposed to stand for "test point left" and > "test point right". Finding that out is extra difficult because of the > code that initializes them is likewise cryptic, something along the > lines of "tpl = l.p;" which says nothing. What's with this obsession > with brevity? It makes code needlessly inscrutable and cryptic for > absolutely no benefit. To me, I think "test_point_right" and "tpr" would be equally useful or useless, without knowledge about what a "test point" is and what left/right means, in this context. My main gripe about other people's code these days is that: how I can read class after class, with no documentation of the /intent/ of the code, or the metaphors, assumptions or the large-scale design. Just a sentence or two -- that's all I ask for. Sometimes when reading it feels like someone spent a lot of talent and time designing a fairly good mechanical lock, and then threw away the key. ... > Some people will still oppose this, for some reason. But you cannot > change what I am seeing. You are not going to make this code more readable > no matter how many times you repeat that the cryptic acronyms are > actually the ones that are more readable. People's brains must simply be wired differently. I prefer short names (I already like "tpr" and memorized its meaning) and yet I /do/ care deeply about maintainability. Perhaps they should test programmers, place them in one of a number of different categories, and then never mix them in teams. But employers wouldn't like it ... they have trouble enough getting /anyone/. And perhaps mixing people who are quite similar would cause even /more/ problems. And perhaps I would end up alone in my category[1], and find myself unemployed. /Jorgen [1] Perhaps it's called [MPP]: maths/punk/poetry. -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web