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 6 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 17 Next page →
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hdHoL.49897$Tcw8.695@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #88200 |
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >On 12/21/22 11:58 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 16:23:22 GMT >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: >>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: >>>> Still begs the question of why they left off the 'e'. Probably lost in the >>>> mists of time. >>>> >>> >>> https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ken_Thompson >>> >>> Ken Thompson was once asked what he would do differently if he were >>> redesigning the UNIX system. His reply: "I'd spell creat with an e." >>> >>> https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/10893/what-did-ken-thompson-mean-when- >>> he-said-id-spell-creat-with-an-e >>> >>> It appears to have been an attempt to save space in source files at a time when >>> >>> disk space was scarce. >> >> Hmm. That doesn't seem credible even back then. How many times would it be >> used in any given program? Couldnt have saved more than a few bytes at most. >> You could achieve far more savings making user functions and variable names >> shorter. >> > >My memory was that it allowd the storing of a symbol table with entries >of 5 6-bit characters in a 32 bit word, with 2 status bits. Making that >field larger WOULD significantly increase the size of the symbol tables. But v6 C supporte 8 character identifiers using 7-bit ASCII, so I don't think that's the case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 10:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87cz8cr4w9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #88194 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
>>On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 20:29:02 +0200
>>Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> wrote:
[...]
>>>I recall the authors of those names are generally happy with them,
>>>except for one abbreviation: creat().
>>
>>Yes, that is a bit of an odd one. Perhaps they thought that "create" would be
>>a name people would want to use a lot for their own function names.
>
> IIRC, "creat" actually came from the assembler version of the system call name.
That doesn't really explain anything. The system call could still have
been called "create", whether it was in assembler or C.
(I've seen speculation that the linker imposed a 6-character limit on
external identifiers, and "creat" was transformed to "_creat", but that
doesn't seem plausible given that there are other system calls with
6-character names.)
--
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 | 2022-12-21 06:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnu81d$ik5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88141 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 14:28:31 -0000 (UTC) > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>For example, Microsoft's coding guideline says: > > I doubt many people would take much notice on MS's opinion on coding. I was wondering how you would try to spin it. Anyway, my point is that what I have written in this thread is a relatively common principle. You can find many coding guidelines out there, including those used by large companies, that repeat the same sentiments I have been saying here, to one extent or another. I am *not* "the only one who thinks like this". It's actually a bit hilarious that you accused me of "narcissism" because you said that I think I have come up with something unique that nobody else has ever thought of before, when in fact it's the exact opposite: *You* seem to be the one who believes I am the only person in the world who thinks like this, while *I* am assering that I am merely confirming a quite commonly held sentiment. And when I show actual examples of other people repeating this sentiment independently, you just dismiss it rather than getting the point (ie. that I am not "the only one"). >>"DO NOT use abbreviations or contractions as part of identifier names. >>For example, use GetWindow rather than GetWin." > > Yet oddly at least 3 generations of unix devs have coped with abbreviated > posix function names such as ioctl(), getuid(), uname() etc without struggling > to understand the code. Not to mention standard C functions such as fopen(). Actually the original reason why the oldest names in Unix are at most 6 characters long is because the first C compilers had that limitation. The limitation was quickly increased by newer compilers, but the (bad) habit of using 6-character names persisted for quite long. A strong instinct of "backwards compatibility with older compilers". Only relatively slowly did developers start daring to use longer names. POSIX didn't want to change the established names, so it just took them as-is, which unfortunately has cemented them to this day. But anyway, people instinctively shortening and abbreviating names doesn't make it a good coding practice. Just because we have had to "cope" with those abbreviated names (which is indeed the case) doesn't mean it's a good thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 10:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnunhd$v0m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88169 |
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:10:55 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >But anyway, people instinctively shortening and abbreviating names doesn't >make it a good coding practice. Just because we have had to "cope" with >those abbreviated names (which is indeed the case) doesn't mean it's a >good thing. I've never felt I've had to "cope". Not having to spell out long winded function names is a positive for me. ioctl is much simpler than InputOutputControl and once you know it is just as descriptive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 11:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnup97$1ppa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88181 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:10:55 -0000 (UTC) > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>But anyway, people instinctively shortening and abbreviating names doesn't >>make it a good coding practice. Just because we have had to "cope" with >>those abbreviated names (which is indeed the case) doesn't mean it's a >>good thing. > > I've never felt I've had to "cope". Not having to spell out long winded > function names is a positive for me. ioctl is much simpler than > InputOutputControl and once you know it is just as descriptive. For the millionth time: Clear names are not for your sake, the programmer. They are for the sake of the reader. The person reading your code who can't read your mind and has to decipher from your code what it's doing. It has absolutely nothing to do with "having to spell out" anything. It has everything to with making your code understandable. You may disagree on what makes code readable and understandable, but please for the sake of everything that's holy and sacred, do finally understand what I'm saying. If you want to write good code, the onus is on *you* to make it as easy for the reader to understand your code. The onus is not on the reader to try to decipher your code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 11:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnupoq$1oh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88184 |
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 11:05:13 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 06:10:55 -0000 (UTC) >> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>>But anyway, people instinctively shortening and abbreviating names doesn't >>>make it a good coding practice. Just because we have had to "cope" with >>>those abbreviated names (which is indeed the case) doesn't mean it's a >>>good thing. >> >> I've never felt I've had to "cope". Not having to spell out long winded >> function names is a positive for me. ioctl is much simpler than >> InputOutputControl and once you know it is just as descriptive. > >For the millionth time: Clear names are not for your sake, the programmer. >They are for the sake of the reader. The person reading your code who >can't read your mind and has to decipher from your code what it's >doing. There's a happy medium. LongJavaStyleFunctionNamesThatSometimesWrapOntoThe NextLine() are just as bad as f().
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 11:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnuq6r$89h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88186 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > There's a happy medium. LongJavaStyleFunctionNamesThatSometimesWrapOntoThe > NextLine() are just as bad as f(). How many times will you keep repeating the length argument, no matter how many times I repeat that it's not about the length? There's nothing in "use full English words, and use as many words as necessary to express what the thing is doing" that implies "artificially make the names as long as possible". If you can clearly express the role of the name in one word, do so. If you need two words to do so, then use two words. If you don't need three words to do that, then don't artificially use three words. Avoid redundancy. The length of the words isn't relevant, as long as they are clear English words. The length of the entire name isn't relevant, as long as it expresses as clearly and unambiguously as feasible what the name is for. When identifier names clearly express what they are doing, it makes reading the code easier. It's that simple. You can argue against that notion all you want, that will not change the fact. This isn't controversial. You can find plenty of coding style guidelines out there that state this very thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-20 16:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnsjqb$neec$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88128 |
On 20/12/2022 14:49, Juha Nieminen wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> Writing code as though you are paid >> by character is not good enough. > > And here we go, once again, with the length argument. It doesn't matter > how many times I repeat that it's not about the length, the same > argument will still come up again, and again, and again, and again. > > Regardless of whether you are misunderstanding my point inadvertently > or deliberately, this just goes to show that you outright don't *want* > to understand nor acknowledge what I'm trying to say. In other words, > you are just arguing in bad faith. > >> What baffles /me/ is that you think you have found a unique way to make >> code "understandable" and that everyone else, the world over, gets it >> wrong and is trying to undermine you. I'm not sure if it is paranoia or >> narcissism, but it is certainly not a good thing. > > What the fuck are you talking about? Nowhere have I said or even implied > that this is my own original idea that nobody else has ever had and > nobody else knows or understands. I know lots of people who fully agree > with these ideas. These ideas are pretty much as old as computer > programming itself. I am merely recounting my own experiences on this > and confirming the validity of these ideas. > > There are several people *in this very thread* who partially or fully > agree with the title of the thread (ie. that the overuse of 'auto', > which is sadly common, is detrimental to program readability). I know > many people who think very similarly about variable and function naming. > I wouldn't be surprised if very similar ideas couldn't be found in > programming books and papers all the way back to the 70's and 60's. > > What I would actually find a bit surprising if there were books and > papers arguing for the opposite, ie. what you are saying. /Everybody/ agrees with the title of this thread! /Please/ get that through your thick skull. (I know you don't take that as an insult, and it is not meant as one.) /Everybody/ thinks /overuse/ of "auto" is bad. /Everybody/ thinks poor choices of identifiers are bad. /Everybody/ thinks code clarity and readability is vital. /Everybody/ thinks good choices of identifiers are important for clarity and readability. /Everybody/ thinks that there are too many programmers that don't code with clarity in mind. But only /one/ person has said that short identifiers are always bad. Only /one/ person has said that making identifiers shorter always makes them harder to understand. Only /one/ person has said that identifiers should always be made from full descriptive words - except for "universally understood" abbreviations, as determined solely by that one person. Only /one/ person thinks it should be possible to understand code line by line, or that it is a good thing to do. Only /one/ person thinks that using "i" for a loop variable is a bad idea. Only /one/ person thinks that every identifier should always be written out in full, without use of "using namespace" or other abbreviation techniques. Only /one/ person thinks that types should always be given manually and explicitly in full, resorting to "auto" only for unnameable types such as lambdas. Only /one/ person does not understand that short and simple code is quicker to read and understand, given that the names used are unambiguous and clear in the context of the surrounding code and the task at hand. Only /one/ person has so utterly and completely misinterpreted everything said in this thread, and thinks other people use short identifiers with a disregard for readability and code clarity, when in fact good programmers use short identifiers precisely because they are /easier/ to understand when used appropriately. Only /one/ person would rather accuse people of arguing in bad faith, or arguing just for the sake of it, rather than attempt to understand why everyone in the thread has a different opinion. Pick /good/ identifiers for the task at hand. Short-lived short-scoped identifiers get short names. Long-lived ones get long names. Identifiers you use a lot in the code get short names because it makes the code easier to read, and their usage should be clear from the context. Rarely used identifiers need longer names because you don't see them so often. Really, this is not rocket science - it's common sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 06:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnu7ed$d9l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88139 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > But only /one/ person has said that short identifiers are always bad. And there we go again with the length argument, no matter how many times I repeat that it's not about length. But even if it were, so what? Why is saying such a thing such heresy, such blasphemy, that when I refuse to recant and see the error of my ways it deserves such a full-on attack, a gigantic flamewar thread, insults thrown around, accusations of "narcissism" and whatnot? Why are you doing this? Why is it *so* important to prove me wrong that you will resort to even question my personality and deliberately throw insults at me? Can't you see how insane this entire thread is? And all this for a sentiment that's pretty common, as seen by many coding guidelines out there, used by big companies. It's actually very easy to find such coding guidelines, ie. ones that recommend against excessive use of abbreviations and acronyms, and to use full words instead. It took me just a few seconds of googling. Try to find a coding style guideline that recommends the opposite, ie. what you are advocating. In other words, one that recommends *against* using full words in identifier names and instead recommends using abbreviations and acronyms in their stead. Such a guideline might exist, but I won't be holding my breath. So why are you doing this? Why is it so important to you? Why are you ready to fight to try to prove me wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 10:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnujsc$10bi2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88168 |
On 21/12/2022 07:00, Juha Nieminen wrote: > So why are you doing this? Why is it so important to you? Why are > you ready to fight to try to prove me wrong? I'd rather you understood better about how to write code that is legible and easily understood. I'd rather /everyone/ did that better - we can all get better at that. I'd rather you did not encourage people to write code that is harder to read because you /think/ it is easier. While you continually doubt /my/ motives, I have no doubts about yours. Your aims are great - it's how you try to achieve them that is /sometimes/ wrong. I also find it frustrating when someone apparently cannot comprehend what others are saying. You've got yourself so tied up in a knot of anger and irritation in this thread that you don't understand that for the most part, everyone /agrees/ with you. We all want more legible code, and we all want better choices of identifiers. But rules like "always use full words in identifiers", "never use abbreviations", "never use using namespace", "never use auto" - these are all counter-productive. They lead to /bad/ code that is hard to follow, hard to maintain, hard to re-use, and easy to get wrong. They are exactly as bad as a rule that said "always use short identifiers" or "always use auto". Good programming is a craft - it is not a matter of mindlessly following rules. Naming identifiers well is a vital part of that, but just as the "ideal" identifier is sometimes several words long, sometimes it is just one character. Knowing when to use features like "using namespace" and "auto" to improve code legibility is part of that - as is knowing when to use abbreviations or short identifiers. These are just as important as knowing when to give namespaces and types explicitly and when to use more descriptive identifiers. And knowing that the choices and balances can be hugely different in different circumstances is vital to that. I am not interested in "proving you wrong", and I am certainly not interested in arguing for its own sake. I have the same goals you have - better software development through more legible code that is easier to understand. That way fewer mistakes are made, and more of the mistakes get found. But in order to be better at this, you have to let go of your absolute rules - going too far in any direction is almost always a bad idea. And you have to appreciate that code must be understood in its context - the function, the class, the file, the program - not line by line. Thus an emphasis on making each /line/ easily understood will be detrimental to making the /code/ easily understood. I imagine that when you write code yourself, you write in a way that is clear by almost anyone's standards. But if you espouse guidelines like "always use descriptive names with full English language words", others are going to take your words to heart and take them to extremes. I've seen plenty of code where such long descriptive identifiers are used that programmers fail to type them correctly - leading to multiple identifiers that should be the same, but have different capitalisations, different grammatical details, or different spelling mistakes. The worst that can happen is that someone listens to your advice and tries to follow it too far, ending up on the Daily WTF: <https://thedailywtf.com/articles/get_words_from_a_number_which_is_passed_as_a_perimeter_into_this_function>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 11:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnupl6$1vfe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88177 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > But rules like "always use full words in identifiers", "never use > abbreviations", "never use using namespace", "never use auto" - these > are all counter-productive. They lead to /bad/ code that is hard to > follow, hard to maintain, hard to re-use, and easy to get wrong. They > are exactly as bad as a rule that said "always use short identifiers" or > "always use auto". There's just so much wrong with that, that I'm not even going to bother to try to repeat what I have already said a hundred times in this thread. I think it's rather telling that what I am saying can be quite easily found in many coding style guidelines out there, including those used by big companies. You'd have very hard time finding a single coding style guideline that's saying what you are saying there, that says that abbreviations and acronyms are preferred over full words. Why do you think that is? At the very most you could argue that *it makes no difference* in terms of readability. However, to outright state that using full words makes code *less* readable and understandable than using cryptic abbreviations and acronyms is just asinine. I'm sorry, but it just is. If you think that abbreviating and acronymizing everything makes text more readable, I dare you to do that to your own text here. Let's see how much more readable it becomes. (Won't be holding my breath, though.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 13:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tnuspr$115j8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88185 |
On 21/12/2022 12:11, Juha Nieminen wrote: > If you think that abbreviating and acronymizing everything > makes text more readable, I dare you to do that to your own > text here. If you think that is anything close to what I wrote, then I can see why you are having such problems understanding this thread. As far as I can tell, you are having trouble appreciating that the opposite of "always do X" is "/sometimes/ don't do X". It is not "never do X". The opposite of "never do X" is "/sometimes/ do X", not "always do X". I fully believe you understand this logic - but you are failing to apply it here. (This is a common problem in discussions when people get carried away or worked up about something.) I am not trying to be patronising here. I just want you to slow down and think about this. I say it is wrong to have a rule "always write full words and descriptive identifiers" because it is /sometimes/ better to use short forms and acronyms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-21 15:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pFFoL.17266$rKDc.10505@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #88185 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: >David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> But rules like "always use full words in identifiers", "never use >> abbreviations", "never use using namespace", "never use auto" - these >> are all counter-productive. They lead to /bad/ code that is hard to >> follow, hard to maintain, hard to re-use, and easy to get wrong. They >> are exactly as bad as a rule that said "always use short identifiers" or >> "always use auto". > >There's just so much wrong with that, that I'm not even going to bother >to try to repeat what I have already said a hundred times in this thread. > >I think it's rather telling that what I am saying can be quite easily >found in many coding style guidelines out there, including those used >by big companies. Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >You'd have very hard time finding a single coding >style guideline that's saying what you are saying there, that says >that abbreviations and acronyms are preferred over full words. David never said that. And I suggest that the vast majority of programmers have never worked for Microsoft, and thus have never been subject to such "coding style guidelines". David's points are valid. Understandable code doesn't rely on slavish devotion to some written recommendations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <877cynxris.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #88025 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> I use "using" locally in functions when it makes code simpler and >> clearer, because it makes names shorter and has less clutter. > > And there we go again with the brevity argument. Again, and again, and > again, and again. Ad infinitum. That's (sorry, that is) what happens when there is a difference of opinion. It may be that this issue has been properly studied, but all the early attempts to inject some data into these sorts of debate were, in my opinion, rather superficial. > Sorter code is not necessarily clearer code. In fact, quite often it's > the opposite. Where does this strange concept come from, that shorter > is clearer? I don't see you using abbreviations in your English prose. This is not a good argument. For one thing everyone uses abbreviations and contractions in written English. You've (sorry, you have) used two in that very paragraph. It's (sorry it is) very common to write things like "the UK", "the USA", "e.g", "i.e.", "etc." in prose. But prose is very different to code. For one thing the contractions and abbreviations used in English are few (in proportion) and largely well-known, so my saying that they are ubiquitous in English is not a good counter-argument either. > Why not? Because if you abbreviated every single word in your text, > it would become near illegible. That's why. You use full English words > because your text becomes more legible that way. Again, this not a good argument because the kinds of text are so very different. Names in code are invented and so, to some extent, arbitrary where most words are not. Ab wds in Eng wd be akwd, but "for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)" is not (in my opinion) despite the short name i. > Why is it different in program code? > > Well, it isn't. Also program code becomes more legible when it's actually > stating, using full English words, what it's doing, instead of being full > of cryptic abbreviations and acronyms. 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. > 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. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tnq92r$53j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88062 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> Sorter code is not necessarily clearer code. In fact, quite often it's >> the opposite. Where does this strange concept come from, that shorter >> is clearer? I don't see you using abbreviations in your English prose. > > This is not a good argument. For one thing everyone uses abbreviations > and contractions in written English. You've (sorry, you have) used two > in that very paragraph. It's (sorry it is) very common to write things > like "the UK", "the USA", "e.g", "i.e.", "etc." in prose. I have stated in another post that my principle is that full English words should be used, but an exception can be made with acronyms that are universally used and understood (such as GPS, HDMI, cos, etc.) You only use abbreviations and acronyms in prose when they are in very common use. You don't start abbreviating every single word you write. Same with code: If you want to use a universally used acronym like "HDMI" then fine, but whey are you abbreviating *everything*? It only makes the code harder to understand, just as would happen if you do it when writing English. >> Well, it isn't. Also program code becomes more legible when it's actually >> stating, using full English words, what it's doing, instead of being full >> of cryptic abbreviations and acronyms. > > 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 consider "index" better because not only does it actually say what it is, it's visually more distinguishable. The more compressed the code is, the harder it is to decipher. If the code is nothing but single-character names and symbols, it becomes very obfuscated. However, when names of things are expressed in actual words, it becomes easier to read because the code isn't as compressed. Of course even better is naming the loop variable after what it's going to index. But lacking that, if nothing else, "index" is better than "i" just because it stands out better from the rest of the symbols in the code and is more visible. Maybe, *maybe*, 'i' is acceptable in *very* short one-liner loops. (But even then... Why? What's the advantage? I see no advantage.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 10:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87ili7s0xg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #88066 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
[...]
> Maybe, *maybe*, 'i' is acceptable in *very* short one-liner loops.
> (But even then... Why? What's the advantage? I see no advantage.)
The advantage is that using 'i' follows an established convention that
has been in use for the better part of a century.
--
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 | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 19:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tnr9ml$gbuf$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88070 |
On 12/19/2022 10:28 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: > [...] >> Maybe, *maybe*, 'i' is acceptable in *very* short one-liner loops. >> (But even then... Why? What's the advantage? I see no advantage.) > > The advantage is that using 'i' follows an established convention that > has been in use for the better part of a century. > Yes. i is widely understood as an index for a loop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 22:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tnrjr4$k8se$1@redfloyd.dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88087 |
On 12/19/2022 7:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 12/19/2022 10:28 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: >> [...] >>> Maybe, *maybe*, 'i' is acceptable in *very* short one-liner loops. >>> (But even then... Why? What's the advantage? I see no advantage.) >> >> The advantage is that using 'i' follows an established convention that >> has been in use for the better part of a century. >> > > Yes. i is widely understood as an index for a loop. For throwaway loop indices, I actually use "j", as it's an easier grep. Though I guess I could use "grep -w i".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 22:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tnrk81$k6ea$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88096 |
On 12/19/2022 10:13 PM, red floyd wrote: > On 12/19/2022 7:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 12/19/2022 10:28 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: >>> [...] >>>> Maybe, *maybe*, 'i' is acceptable in *very* short one-liner loops. >>>> (But even then... Why? What's the advantage? I see no advantage.) >>> >>> The advantage is that using 'i' follows an established convention that >>> has been in use for the better part of a century. >>> >> >> Yes. i is widely understood as an index for a loop. > > For throwaway loop indices, I actually use "j", as it's an easier grep. > Though I guess I could use "grep -w i". :^D Well, I have seem several interpretations of a complex number. j as a component comes to mind. I can understand them. is j is to i as the imaginary part? uv in textures as xy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-12-19 22:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tnrkdk$kaja$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88096 |
On 12/19/2022 10:13 PM, red floyd wrote: > On 12/19/2022 7:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 12/19/2022 10:28 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: >>> [...] >>>> Maybe, *maybe*, 'i' is acceptable in *very* short one-liner loops. >>>> (But even then... Why? What's the advantage? I see no advantage.) >>> >>> The advantage is that using 'i' follows an established convention that >>> has been in use for the better part of a century. >>> >> >> Yes. i is widely understood as an index for a loop. > > For throwaway loop indices, I actually use "j", as it's an easier grep. > Though I guess I could use "grep -w i". I could read it, no problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web