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 11 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 17 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 14:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87cz8cvm8m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #88175 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: > Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> This thread is getting a bit _hot_. > > In all honesty I cannot really understand why. I think it started quite hot! The subject, "Overuse of 'auto'", hints at polemic. Maybe you intended to explain what you consider to be "overuse", but I couldn't find that in the OP. Without some attempt to differentiate between reasonable use and excessive use, the post sets up conflict form the very start: "Ever used auto? I bet you were wrong to do so!" it seems to say. (Note "seems" -- I know that's not what you said, but it's how it reads without more detail than you gave). You then give an example that certainly got my back up: auto foobar = someFunction(a, b); This is obviously impenetrable, but I'd say that's because of every single word /other/ than the auto -- it's possible that the auto is the /only/ sensible part of such a line! If it were auto parser = parse::sequence(parse_function_expression, parse_arguments); then the auto is (to my mind) a justifiable choice. Equally (and I am trying to fair here) there are choices for foobar, someFunction, a and b for which the auto does indeed hide information that would otherwise help the reader. (Note that I am speculating on the existence of a combinator parsing library in C++. The fact that the reader may no know how this sort of thing works can't be used to argue that the code is unreadable. It's simply not possible to write code that can be understood by people who don't know the techniques being used. Comments will help, but only up to a point.) > Nothing of what I have written is in any way controversial or worthy > of heavy opposition. That stance was clear from the start, but that's not going to promote discussion. It became clear, quite quickly, that some of what you were saying was, at least mildly, controversial. At that point, a change in tone to "Oh, that surprises me -- can you explain why you think knowing the type is sometimes unhelpful?" would have led, I feel, to a more productive debate. > As I mentioned elsewhere, it's actually quite > commonly agreed eg. in coding style guidelines (at least the part > of avoiding excessive use of acronyms and using full words instead > which, ironically, seems to be the biggest source of contention here.) There you go again! Avoiding excessive use of anything is obviously wrong so the real question -- the only interesting question -- is what, if any, uses would not count as excessive, and what, if any, uses might actually help? > There's nothing controversial or horrendous about it, so why all this? > I honestly cannot understand. I hope I have given you some ideas about that. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-22 12:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <to1i1r$8ei$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88191 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > You then give an example that certainly got my back up: > > auto foobar = someFunction(a, b); > > This is obviously impenetrable, but I'd say that's because of every > single word /other/ than the auto -- it's possible that the auto is the > /only/ sensible part of such a line! The problem is that even when both the variable and the function are named in a descriptive manner, neither extremely rarely determine exactly what the return value type of the function is. As in, the actual basic type, type alias, struct or class (or even lambda), by name. If you are just trying to get a cursory picture of what the code is doing, as in, like, trying to understand at a higher level what the action is that it's performing, or what algorithm it's implementing, then perhaps knowing the actual return type, by name, isn't often extraordinarily important. However, when you *do* need to know exactly what the concrete type is, by name, not just what "kind of type" it is (in a more abstract generic manner), then it becomes an obstacle because the name has been hidden. Quite often the exact type doesn't become clear even in the subsequent code that follows the above. The subsequent code might, for example, call some member function of that object... but that doesn't really say much. Perhaps, if well named, it gives you a generic idea of what is being done, but it doesn't tell you what the actual type is, or where to find it. It's just yet another obstacle in trying to understand in detail the code. And yes, I have a lot of experience in trying to read and undrestand that kind of code, and becoming frustrated when such types are being hidden behind 'auto'. In many of these situations it's not enough for me to get a cursory idea of the abstract behavior of that type. I need to know the exact type, by name. >> As I mentioned elsewhere, it's actually quite >> commonly agreed eg. in coding style guidelines (at least the part >> of avoiding excessive use of acronyms and using full words instead >> which, ironically, seems to be the biggest source of contention here.) > > There you go again! Avoiding excessive use of anything is obviously > wrong so the real question -- the only interesting question -- is what, > if any, uses would not count as excessive, and what, if any, uses might > actually help? I don't understand that question at all. "Excessive use of X is bad" does not mean "every single case of excessive use of something is bad". Why are you clinging to that word, "excessive"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-22 20:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <877cyjrwxs.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #88218 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> You then give an example that certainly got my back up: >> >> auto foobar = someFunction(a, b); >> >> This is obviously impenetrable, but I'd say that's because of every >> single word /other/ than the auto -- it's possible that the auto is the >> /only/ sensible part of such a line! > > The problem is that even when both the variable and the function are named > in a descriptive manner, neither extremely rarely determine exactly what > the return value type of the function is. As in, the actual basic type, > type alias, struct or class (or even lambda), by name. Yes, of course. In order to move the discussion along, you need to assume that the people you are talking to are not fools. I know that using proper names won't determine the type. > If you are just trying to get a cursory picture of what the code is doing, > as in, like, trying to understand at a higher level what the action is > that it's performing, or what algorithm it's implementing, then perhaps > knowing the actual return type, by name, isn't often extraordinarily > important. > > However, when you *do* need to know exactly what the concrete type is, > by name, not just what "kind of type" it is (in a more abstract generic > manner), then it becomes an obstacle because the name has been hidden. That's begging the question. Please assume that everyone here will agree then "when you *do* need to know exactly what the concrete type is" then auto might be a hindrance. The question for you is, are there any cases when seeing the exact type is a hindrance to reading the code? I believe there are and then raises the question of we decide when using auto is appropriate. > Quite often the exact type doesn't become clear even in the subsequent > code that follows the above. The subsequent code might, for example, > call some member function of that object... but that doesn't really > say much. Perhaps, if well named, it gives you a generic idea of what > is being done, but it doesn't tell you what the actual type is, or > where to find it. > > It's just yet another obstacle in trying to understand in detail the > code. And yes, I have a lot of experience in trying to read and > undrestand that kind of code, and becoming frustrated when such types > are being hidden behind 'auto'. In many of these situations it's not > enough for me to get a cursory idea of the abstract behavior of that > type. I need to know the exact type, by name. What do you mean "by name"? Many types are not explicitly named. (In C, a "type name" includes things like "const int (*)[4]" so this is a genuine question.) Are there any times when you think that seeing exact type hinders readability? For example, a while ago I was processing a collection of sets of numbers indexed by strings (not in C++ as it happens). In C++ processing a std::map<std::string, std::vector<double>> string_frequencies; with a loop should, to my mind, be done using something like for (const auto &pair : string_frequencies) ... I don't think the reader is helped by having the full type: for (const std::pair<const std::string, std::vector<double>> &pair : string_frequencies) ... >>> As I mentioned elsewhere, it's actually quite >>> commonly agreed eg. in coding style guidelines (at least the part >>> of avoiding excessive use of acronyms and using full words instead >>> which, ironically, seems to be the biggest source of contention here.) >> >> There you go again! Avoiding excessive use of anything is obviously >> wrong so the real question -- the only interesting question -- is what, >> if any, uses would not count as excessive, and what, if any, uses might >> actually help? > > I don't understand that question at all. > > "Excessive use of X is bad" does not mean "every single case of excessive > use of something is bad". Yes of course. In fact it means almost nothing at all. It's not helpful to say that excessive use of X is bad because that's what excessive means -- too much to be good. > Why are you clinging to that word, "excessive"? Clinging? I'm not clinging to it. I commented on /your/ use of the word. It makes your remark unhelpful. The whole point of my comment was to suggest that /you/ should not use the term as it begs the question: what counts as excessive use? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-23 10:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <to401m$kdu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88230 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> Are there any times when you think that seeing exact type hinders
> readability? For example, a while ago I was processing a collection
> of sets of numbers indexed by strings (not in C++ as it happens). In
> C++ processing a
>
> std::map<std::string, std::vector<double>> string_frequencies;
>
> with a loop should, to my mind, be done using something like
>
> for (const auto &pair : string_frequencies) ...
>
> I don't think the reader is helped by having the full type:
>
> for (const std::pair<const std::string, std::vector<double>> &pair : string_frequencies) ...
I have never said that there are zero situations where using 'auto' is
warranted and thus it should be avoided at all costs. Some situations
where using it might be warranted (assuming that the resulting code
still is easy to read and understand) include:
- lambas (helped by the fact that 'auto' is officially the only way)
- iterators (especially in loop statemets)
- the return value of std::make_shared() etc (although this depends
on the context).
- structured bindings (because 'auto' is mandatory due to the syntax)
The example you gave above may also qualify, although I would actually say
that if the type feels way too long to type every time, that might be a
sign that perhaps it could benefit from some abstraction.
My main problem is not those situations. It's when some programmers use
'auto' as much as possible, shoving it everywhere where they can. This
can become especially frustrating when knowing the actual type would
be useful in order to better undrestand the code, and it has been
completely hidden via 'auto'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-23 19:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87v8m1rjoe.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #88240 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> Are there any times when you think that seeing exact type hinders >> readability? For example, a while ago I was processing a collection >> of sets of numbers indexed by strings (not in C++ as it happens). In >> C++ processing a >> >> std::map<std::string, std::vector<double>> string_frequencies; >> >> with a loop should, to my mind, be done using something like >> >> for (const auto &pair : string_frequencies) ... >> >> I don't think the reader is helped by having the full type: >> >> for (const std::pair<const std::string, std::vector<double>> &pair : string_frequencies) ... > > I have never said that there are zero situations where using 'auto' is > warranted and thus it should be avoided at all costs. Some situations > where using it might be warranted (assuming that the resulting code > still is easy to read and understand) include: > > - lambas (helped by the fact that 'auto' is officially the only way) > - iterators (especially in loop statemets) > - the return value of std::make_shared() etc (although this depends > on the context). > - structured bindings (because 'auto' is mandatory due to the syntax) This sort of reasonable exchange was missing from most of the thread. > The example you gave above may also qualify, although I would actually say > that if the type feels way too long to type every time, that might be a > sign that perhaps it could benefit from some abstraction. I agree with this last point, but if the details of type are abstracted you would loose what I thought was your primary intent: to see the exact details of the type. > My main problem is not those situations. It's when some programmers use > 'auto' as much as possible, shoving it everywhere where they can. I doubt anyone would approve of shoving auto everywhere it could be used. I would probably accept more uses of auto that you would but the exact boundary between reasonable use and overuse is bound to be fuzzy and personal. > This > can become especially frustrating when knowing the actual type would > be useful in order to better undrestand the code, and it has been > completely hidden via 'auto'. The only thing I'd say about this is that I suspect that in a few of these cases the fact that actual the type must be known in order to easily understand the code suggests problems with it that are not really to do with the use of auto. It would be good to see some actual examples, but you probably can't post any for legal reasons. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 19:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnqajb$dj8i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88062 |
On 19/12/2022 17:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: > What's needed are some more nuanced examples and/or rules. My own > preference is to take into account the length of the scope of the name > as well as considerations such as convention and generality of use. I > consider "index" no better than "i" when the scope is very short (as it > usually should be) and when the use is general, but "index_of_largest" > might be better in a less general context. > I think your preference here is shared by the majority of programmers (excluding those that write with a disregard for legibility). >> The brevity-over-clarity style of programming will probably be a curse >> in programming for as long as humanity will exist and keep writing >> programs. > > Brevity-over-clarity is always bad, almost by definition. We should try > to avoid terms like "overly short names" and "excessive abbreviation" in > this kind of debate because they beg the question. > Yes. The whole thread is based on a similar circular argument, or a tautology - of course /overuse/ of "auto" is bad, as is /overuse/ of anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 09:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnc5cu$sjd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87884 |
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 06:23:05 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>- Always use full English words instead of contractions and acronyms. >>>"return_value" is better than "ret". "error_code" is better than "err". >>>"generateRandomValue" is better than "genRandVal". "column_index" is >>>better than "i". >> >> Not if you end up with a wall of text like a lot of Java code. > >And there we go again with the length argument. > >Length. Does. Not. Matter. What matters is readability. Clearly you've not worked with much Java code. >>>(An exception is if the contraction or acronym is universally used and >>>understood, like "GPS", "HDMI", "cos", "tan", etc.) >> >> 'i' is VERY common as an index value in for(). > >But since 'i' does not refer to anything specific, it's better and more It doesn't need to, its simply an index counter. Everyone knows it as an index counter. >I honestly cannot understand why you are even opposing that. Long winded names are as bad as names that are meaningless. >>>- Almost always use namespace prefixes when using names inside a >>>namespace, even in code that's inside the same namespace. (This is >>>because when the namespace appears in the name, it makes it very >>>clear that the name is from that namespace and not a function-local >>>name, a class member, or a global name somewhere else.) >> >> In that case whats the point of having a namespace at all? You can achieve >> exactly the same result C style with function naming. Eg: instead of >> mylib::func() you can just call it mylib_func(). > >If you want to do that, go right ahead. Its exactly what you're doing except you don't seem to realise it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 12:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tncfh6$1imt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87891 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> 'i' is VERY common as an index value in for(). >> >>But since 'i' does not refer to anything specific, it's better and more > > It doesn't need to, its simply an index counter. Everyone knows it as an > index counter. What's so hard to understand in the fact that the name 'i' does not tell me _anything_ about what it's going to be used for? And that if it's named so that it tells what it's going to index, it makes the for loop line immediately clearer, because it's directly telling me what we are looping. Also, if the amount of code in the loop is even slightly long, a quick visual scan will reveal all the instances of eg. "column_index" a lot easier than an "i" buried somewhere inside some square brackets at random places. This becomes *especially* important with nested loop. You wouldn't believe how significantly clearer it is when each loop variable is named clearly after what it's going to index, compared to if they are just named 'i', 'j' and 'k'. I honestly cannot understand what's so controversial about this. It should be quite self-evident: When you express what it's being used for, it's much easier to understand than if it's just a short generic name that says nothing. >>I honestly cannot understand why you are even opposing that. > > Long winded names are as bad as names that are meaningless. That's just a completely asinine assertion. If long-winded names are bad, then why do you use long words when you write English? Why don't you contract every word you use? You use full English words because if you were to contract every word your text would become illegible. Why is code any different? I just find it baffling how this seems to be so controversial. *Tell what you are doing* in your code. Don't make it cryptic and obscure for no reason. This should be good programming 101. We are not writing code for the obfuscated C code contest. >>> In that case whats the point of having a namespace at all? You can achieve >>> exactly the same result C style with function naming. Eg: instead of >>> mylib::func() you can just call it mylib_func(). >> >>If you want to do that, go right ahead. > > Its exactly what you're doing except you don't seem to realise it. I fail to see the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 16:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnctmf$cc6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87901 |
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 12:28:24 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> 'i' is VERY common as an index value in for(). >>> >>>But since 'i' does not refer to anything specific, it's better and more >> >> It doesn't need to, its simply an index counter. Everyone knows it as an >> index counter. > >What's so hard to understand in the fact that the name 'i' does not tell >me _anything_ about what it's going to be used for? And that if it's Its convention. 'i' has been the top level index counter since 1980s BASIC. You'll probably find it used as an index var in for() in just about every large C and C++ program ever written. >This becomes *especially* important with nested loop. You wouldn't >believe how significantly clearer it is when each loop variable is >named clearly after what it's going to index, compared to if they >are just named 'i', 'j' and 'k'. Clearer for you maybe. For me i, j and k would be perfectly clear. >I honestly cannot understand what's so controversial about this. Nothing. But I can't understand why you seem to think your personal preferences are the True Way. Though then you're not alone in that. >It should be quite self-evident: When you express what it's being >used for, it's much easier to understand than if it's just a >short generic name that says nothing. Speak for yourself. >> Long winded names are as bad as names that are meaningless. > >That's just a completely asinine assertion. Go read some Java. >If long-winded names are bad, then why do you use long words when >you write English? Why don't you contract every word you use? I guess you've never used SMS. >You use full English words because if you were to contract every >word your text would become illegible. Why is code any different? A lot of common words in English are short, eg 'a', 'an', 'the'. Same in most european languages (and probably others). And russian dispensed with the definate and indefinate articles altogether. >I just find it baffling how this seems to be so controversial. >*Tell what you are doing* in your code. Don't make it cryptic and >obscure for no reason. This should be good programming 101. >We are not writing code for the obfuscated C code contest. *sigh*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 16:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <C9nmL.36980$vBI8.30864@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #87912 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 12:28:24 -0000 (UTC) >Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>> 'i' is VERY common as an index value in for(). >>>> >>>>But since 'i' does not refer to anything specific, it's better and more >>> >>> It doesn't need to, its simply an index counter. Everyone knows it as an >>> index counter. >> >>What's so hard to understand in the fact that the name 'i' does not tell >>me _anything_ about what it's going to be used for? And that if it's > >Its convention. 'i' has been the top level index counter since 1980s BASIC. How about 1960s Basic? Or Fortran 66, for that matter, where I,J, K, L, M and N are implictly integer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnd0cu$1p0a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87917 |
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 16:50:42 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 12:28:24 -0000 (UTC) >>Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>>> 'i' is VERY common as an index value in for(). >>>>> >>>>>But since 'i' does not refer to anything specific, it's better and more >>>> >>>> It doesn't need to, its simply an index counter. Everyone knows it as an >>>> index counter. >>> >>>What's so hard to understand in the fact that the name 'i' does not tell >>>me _anything_ about what it's going to be used for? And that if it's >> >>Its convention. 'i' has been the top level index counter since 1980s BASIC. > >How about 1960s Basic? Or Fortran 66, for that matter, where I,J, K, L, M and >N are >implictly integer. My programming experience only goes back to the 80s but I'll take your word for it :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-14 20:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnd6ie$2rmfq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87917 |
On 14/12/2022 17:50, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 12:28:24 -0000 (UTC) >> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>>> 'i' is VERY common as an index value in for(). >>>>> >>>>> But since 'i' does not refer to anything specific, it's better and more >>>> >>>> It doesn't need to, its simply an index counter. Everyone knows it as an >>>> index counter. >>> >>> What's so hard to understand in the fact that the name 'i' does not tell >>> me _anything_ about what it's going to be used for? And that if it's >> >> Its convention. 'i' has been the top level index counter since 1980s BASIC. > > How about 1960s Basic? Or Fortran 66, for that matter, where I,J, K, L, M and N are > implictly integer. > Or 1970's Forth, where I and J are standard words built into the language as the way to access loop counters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 08:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnp6le$1csr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #87912 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>What's so hard to understand in the fact that the name 'i' does not tell >>me _anything_ about what it's going to be used for? And that if it's > > Its convention. 'i' has been the top level index counter since 1980s BASIC. > You'll probably find it used as an index var in for() in just about every large > C and C++ program ever written. We don't live in the 1980's anymore, nor are we writing BASIC. Bad habits don't become good habits just because they have existed for a long time. >>This becomes *especially* important with nested loop. You wouldn't >>believe how significantly clearer it is when each loop variable is >>named clearly after what it's going to index, compared to if they >>are just named 'i', 'j' and 'k'. > > Clearer for you maybe. For me i, j and k would be perfectly clear. Well, exactly. When you are *writing* the code, *you* know what that 'i' is going to index when you are writing the for-statement because you have a clear picture in your mind of what that for-statement is doing. However, when I am *reading* your code, *I* don't know what that 'i' is going to index because I don't yet know the intent of that for-loop. Additionally, the 'i' buried deep into the for-loop body makes it harder to find with a quick visual scan. If, however, you use a name like 'name_index', or 'column_index', then I know immediately when reading that for-statement what that variable is going to index and thus what the loop is for. I honestly cannot understand what's so hard to accept in this, and why it reserves such strong opposition. >>It should be quite self-evident: When you express what it's being >>used for, it's much easier to understand than if it's just a >>short generic name that says nothing. > > Speak for yourself. I speak for the person reading the code. Which by this point I have *a lot* of experience on. These opinions are not based on random thoughts. They are based on literally *years* of experience in reading tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of lines of code written by other people. I have seen countless times the difference it makes when people name variables and functions clearly or unclearly, or when they overuse the 'auto' keyword, or when they overload functions for no good reason. >>> Long winded names are as bad as names that are meaningless. >> >>That's just a completely asinine assertion. > > Go read some Java. I haven't read much Java, but you are actually (and perhaps a bit ironically) making it sound like typical Java code is actually easier to read and understand than typical C++ or C code. >>If long-winded names are bad, then why do you use long words when >>you write English? Why don't you contract every word you use? > > I guess you've never used SMS. I don't see you using cryptic abbreviations in your English prose here...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 09:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnpbhi$1j6v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88027 |
On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 08:16:48 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>What's so hard to understand in the fact that the name 'i' does not tell >>>me _anything_ about what it's going to be used for? And that if it's >> >> Its convention. 'i' has been the top level index counter since 1980s BASIC. >> You'll probably find it used as an index var in for() in just about every >large >> C and C++ program ever written. > >We don't live in the 1980's anymore, nor are we writing BASIC. >Bad habits don't become good habits just because they have existed >for a long time. If habits hang around for a long time its usually because they're good, not bad. >If, however, you use a name like 'name_index', or 'column_index', >then I know immediately when reading that for-statement what that >variable is going to index and thus what the loop is for. Because it becomes noise amongst all the other variable names. We're not writing prose, we're writing code. Code should be clear and to the point. >I honestly cannot understand what's so hard to accept in this, >and why it reserves such strong opposition. Stop pretending your opinions are facts. Its personal preference, nothing more. >> Speak for yourself. > >I speak for the person reading the code. Which by this point >I have *a lot* of experience on. These opinions are not based >on random thoughts. They are based on literally *years* of >experience in reading tens of thousands, even hundreds of >thousands of lines of code written by other people. I have > You think you're the only person on this group who's had to work on other peoples code? >they overuse the 'auto' keyword, or when they overload >functions for no good reason. I'll agree with you on those. >I haven't read much Java, but you are actually (and perhaps a bit >ironically) making it sound like typical Java code is actually >easier to read and understand than typical C++ or C code. No, it isn't. Because code should be scannable by quickly by eye. If the variable and function names are so long you have to read it like prose then you quickly lose track of whats going on because your short term memory can't hold it all for long enough. >>>If long-winded names are bad, then why do you use long words when >>>you write English? Why don't you contract every word you use? >> >> I guess you've never used SMS. > >I don't see you using cryptic abbreviations in your English prose >here... What, like SMS? :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 12:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnpkbe$1rqc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88034 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > If habits hang around for a long time its usually because they're good, not > bad. You can't be serious. >>I honestly cannot understand what's so hard to accept in this, >>and why it reserves such strong opposition. > > Stop pretending your opinions are facts. Its personal preference, nothing more. You can argue against it all you want, you can write ten miles of text repeating your objections over and over and over, but you cannot change what I see with my own eyes. I have had to read inordinate amounts of code written by other people, having to fully understand what the code is doing, for several years now. You cannot make what I have seen clearer and easier to understand no matter how much you argue that it is. You cannot make osbcure cryptic obfuscated acronyms clearer and easier to understand than fully written-out words because I can see clearly with my own eyes which one is easier to understand and which makes the code easier to read. Code that I need to actually understand what it's doing. I cannot understand why you insist so vehemently in defending writing cryptic obfsucated code. It's relatively clear that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. No matter what I say, you will argue against it, just for the sake of arguing against it. Get into your thick skull that just because *you* can understand your own code which you are writing at the moment, that doesn't mean that *somebody else* is going to understand it equally easily. *You* may know what the cryptic acronym is representing. *You* may know what the 'i' will be indexing. *You* may know what the 'auto' is standing for. That's because *you* are writing the code so you know what you want to express. Someone else, however, cannot read your mind. Someone else reading the code has to decipher what you were thinking from that code. If you refuse to express clearly what you are trying to express, that makes it so much harder for that person to understand it. > You think you're the only person on this group who's had to work on other > peoples code? Deducing from these response, it appears to be so. If people had *actually* had to decipher hundreds of thousands of lines of obscure cryptic code they may perhaps be more agreeable on the importance of actually saying what you want to express in the code rather than actively trying to hide it behind cryptic abbreviations and 'auto' keywords. I don't even understand what there is to oppose in that idea. I especially am unable to understand how someone could suggest that the cryptic acronyms and abbreviations are easier to read and understand than the fully written-out English words. Quite clearly you haven't had to decipher other people's code if you think that obfuscation makes the code easier to understand. >>I haven't read much Java, but you are actually (and perhaps a bit >>ironically) making it sound like typical Java code is actually >>easier to read and understand than typical C++ or C code. > > No, it isn't. Because code should be scannable by quickly by eye. If the > variable and function names are so long you have to read it like prose then > you quickly lose track of whats going on because your short term memory can't > hold it all for long enough. You are still making it sound like typical Java code is more readable than typical C or C++ code. > What, like SMS? :) One of my exceptions to the rule is "unless it's a universally used term or acronym which meaning is very clear". That does not include your own acronyms that you made up for your particular piece of code, because those are not universally used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 14:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnpq1j$bn40$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88039 |
On 19/12/2022 13:10, Juha Nieminen wrote: > I cannot understand why you insist so vehemently in defending writing > cryptic obfsucated code. For the love of $DEITY, will you /please/ read what others are posting, and stop tilting at windmills?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 16:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnq4t1$ec$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88039 |
On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 12:10:24 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> If habits hang around for a long time its usually because they're good, not >> bad. > >You can't be serious. I can. People sticks with what works in coding unless there's a very good reason to change it. >> Stop pretending your opinions are facts. Its personal preference, nothing >more. > >You can argue against it all you want, you can write ten miles of text >repeating your objections over and over and over, but you cannot change >what I see with my own eyes. What do you see here, a face or a vase? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase#/media/File:Face_or_vase_ata_01.svg Peoples perceptions are different. >I have had to read inordinate amounts of code written by other people, >having to fully understand what the code is doing, for several years >now. You cannot make what I have seen clearer and easier to understand Wow, a whole several years. I've been doing it since the mid 90s and I suspect others on here much longer than that. >I cannot understand why you insist so vehemently in defending writing >cryptic obfsucated code. It's relatively clear that you are arguing >just for the sake of arguing. No matter what I say, you will argue >against it, just for the sake of arguing against it. Overrates importance of own opinion. Tick. >Get into your thick skull that just because *you* can understand Insults when losing argument. Tick. >> You think you're the only person on this group who's had to work on other >> peoples code? > >Deducing from these response, it appears to be so. Arrogance. Tick. >> No, it isn't. Because code should be scannable by quickly by eye. If the >> variable and function names are so long you have to read it like prose then >> you quickly lose track of whats going on because your short term memory can't > >> hold it all for long enough. > >You are still making it sound like typical Java code is more readable >than typical C or C++ code. Go read some then get back to me. >> What, like SMS? :) > >One of my exceptions to the rule is "unless it's a universally used term >or acronym which meaning is very clear". What, like 'i' for indexing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnq9at$909$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88061 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>Get into your thick skull that just because *you* can understand > > Insults when losing argument. Tick. Insults? Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker, but this is the first time in my life I hear that "thick skull" is an insult. It just means "stubborn". Unless you think "stubborn" is also an insult. I myself can be quite stubborn at times. I don't find that very insulting. Maybe you also have a thin skin in addition to a thick skull... And this post of yours did nothing to dispel my notion that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Nobody in their right mind would say that clearer variable and function naming is a bad thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 10:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87edsvs0js.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #88067 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>Get into your thick skull that just because *you* can understand
>>
>> Insults when losing argument. Tick.
>
> Insults? Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker, but
> this is the first time in my life I hear that "thick skull" is an
> insult. It just means "stubborn". Unless you think "stubborn" is
> also an insult.
I am a native English speaker. Yes, "Get into your thick skull
..." is an insult.
> I myself can be quite stubborn at times. I don't find that very
> insulting.
>
> Maybe you also have a thin skin in addition to a thick skull...
Also an insult.
> And this post of yours did nothing to dispel my notion that you are
> just arguing for the sake of arguing. Nobody in their right mind
> would say that clearer variable and function naming is a bad thing.
Nobody here is saying "clearer variable and function naming is a bad
thing". Most people here disagree with you about what names are
clearer.
You now seem to believe that a large number of participants here are
disagreeing with you because we're "just arguing for the sake of
arguing", that we're ganging up on you and disagreeing with your
obviously correct points just because. Is that plausible? Do you think
there's something about you personally that induces people to behave
this way?
There isn't. No doubt some of the counterarguments are influenced by
the vehemence of your own arguments, but I haven't seen any indication
here that anyone -- including you -- is arguing insincerely.
A lot of people here *understand* what you're saying and *disagree* with
you. I won't ask you to get that through your thick skull, but please
consider the possibility.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for XCOM Labs
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 06:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnrkdi$tme$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88072 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: >> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>Get into your thick skull that just because *you* can understand >>> >>> Insults when losing argument. Tick. >> >> Insults? Maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker, but >> this is the first time in my life I hear that "thick skull" is an >> insult. It just means "stubborn". Unless you think "stubborn" is >> also an insult. > > I am a native English speaker. Yes, "Get into your thick skull > ..." is an insult. Well, it was not originally my intent to use it as an insult. However, by this point I'm actually changing my mind. I just cannot believe why people are arguing for the sake of arguing, against something that should be extraordinarily non-controversial like "name your variables and functions clearly". Such a sentiment seems so highly controversial that now people are resorting to petty "you are now insulting me!!!" whining. What's wrong with people? This is absolutely insane. >> I myself can be quite stubborn at times. I don't find that very >> insulting. >> >> Maybe you also have a thin skin in addition to a thick skull... > > Also an insult. Then so be it. I don't care anymore. This entire thing is completely insane. > Nobody here is saying "clearer variable and function naming is a bad > thing". Actually they are. There are people here who in all seriousness are claiming that cryptic acronyms are literally easier to read and understand than names consisting of full words. I'm sorry, but I am not going to be convinced of that. I'm not insane. (There's another "insult", you're welcome.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web