Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60096 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-15 11:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-04-30 01:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 318 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-15 11:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-15 19:55 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:00 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-04-15 13:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-16 13:08 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) - 2015-04-16 01:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) - 2015-05-01 02:07 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 04:29 -0700
Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-16 00:13 -0700
Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-16 00:34 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 05:54 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 04:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 11:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-02 23:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-08 20:52 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-08 16:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-09 16:14 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 09:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 00:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-30 20:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 05:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-01 06:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 09:17 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-16 11:01 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 04:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-04-16 13:19 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 09:20 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-17 08:21 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 15:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-17 06:18 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-04-17 12:24 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-17 15:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 13:47 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-30 13:48 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 16:35 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 10:00 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 06:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-02 15:53 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 10:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-04 09:41 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 07:01 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-06 09:34 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-06 04:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-06 13:51 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-07 21:49 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 13:22 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-06 15:27 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-06 09:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-06 21:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 00:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-06 10:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-06 13:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-07 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-07 20:22 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-08 02:56 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-08 10:53 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 18:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-08 09:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-08 11:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-10 08:01 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-09 13:13 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-10 08:51 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-09 16:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 13:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:36 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-06 22:13 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-07 11:56 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 14:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 11:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 12:02 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 13:36 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 17:13 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 18:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-08 11:35 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:41 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 13:59 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 10:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-10 10:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 19:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 04:54 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 13:19 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-12 05:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:31 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 16:40 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 10:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:39 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 05:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-07 17:59 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 09:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:40 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 13:47 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 20:04 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-11 12:39 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-12 07:34 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-12 10:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-11 21:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 21:18 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-11 23:37 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 00:07 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-11 16:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 01:19 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 01:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-12 11:00 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 12:33 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 13:25 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2015-05-14 19:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 20:15 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 07:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-21 08:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-25 02:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 09:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-10 15:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-10 10:20 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-10 16:30 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 10:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-13 20:20 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 02:57 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-07-13 12:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 03:21 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 17:35 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-15 18:46 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-15 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:24 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 08:43 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-21 13:26 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 22:11 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-22 04:03 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-22 07:14 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 08:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-21 23:39 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:35 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 06:36 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 08:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 16:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 08:57 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-23 06:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 16:07 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 06:25 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-24 12:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 22:49 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 12:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 22:56 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:29 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 08:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 19:45 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 04:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 17:50 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 03:21 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:30 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-26 11:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-26 16:16 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-26 23:04 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-30 15:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-12 17:28 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 11:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 11:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 05:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 05:34 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 22:52 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 03:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-21 12:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 11:01 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 20:18 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 21:47 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Kusalananda <kusalananda@example.com> - 2015-05-24 07:12 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:18 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-22 07:15 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 14:09 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-07-11 10:37 +0800
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 12:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-12 10:20 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 07:23 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 13:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 21:56 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:14 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 16:38 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 11:38 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 17:58 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 13:44 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 11:32 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 03:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 08:41 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 18:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-24 19:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-10 14:54 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-10 15:10 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 20:51 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 13:22 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 20:47 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 17:05 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-11 11:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-07-11 18:06 +0800
Re: Readability part I - code Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-11 14:57 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 09:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 20:06 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 04:55 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 13:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 06:29 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 13:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 07:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 15:26 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:36 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 23:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:37 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 10:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 16:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:03 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 06:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:23 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:52 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 09:29 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 14:56 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 11:04 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-10 18:39 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 01:23 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-10 17:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 10:50 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 06:55 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 15:23 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 08:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 07:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 22:04 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 14:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-11 20:05 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:31 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 18:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 19:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 13:24 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-13 06:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 23:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 23:21 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 17:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 10:31 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 16:12 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 18:02 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-12 11:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 21:06 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 15:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 16:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 13:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 20:13 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 23:01 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 17:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-12 00:45 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:55 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-12 02:44 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-12 16:51 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 10:25 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-11 09:25 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-08 16:15 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:56 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 20:01 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 07:09 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:12 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 07:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-25 14:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:17 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 03:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 14:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 08:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:18 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 10:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-03 10:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-05-03 19:47 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 13:40 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-04 12:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 06:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 09:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 20:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-06 10:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-04-16 12:28 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 03:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 01:40 -0700
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 11:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Readability part I - code |
| Message-ID | <kfn1tjl2prj.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
What makes code readable?
In a recent thread this term came up, and it got me thinking
about the different sorts of qualities and aspects that are
commonly lumped together under the general term "readability".
Of course I have my own ideas (some more definite than others) on
the subject, but it got me wondering what other folks might have
to say about it. So I am writing this to invite your responses,
ideas, ramblings, thoughts, orations, monographs and diatribes,
on the general question of what makes code readable. Three
suggested guidelines:
(1) The remarks should apply to programs written in C. (They may
also apply to programs written in some other language(s), but
they should apply to C programs.)
(2) Please let's not degenerate into dogmatic arguments. If
someone thinks 'while(1)' is "more readable" than 'for(;;)',
or vice versa, simply say so and move on (explaining why one
thinks so is okay, making an argument about what someone else
should think is .. an argument). There is no point in
arguing about subjective reactions.
(3) In this thread please limit remarks to matters related to
code, without regard to questions about commenting. The
related area regarding comments I will bring up in a separate
thread.
To start things going, some general questions. What are
different kinds, or different aspects, of readability? Do
different aspects interact, or are they mostly independent? What
habits, or development practices, or guidelines, or rules of
thumb, etc, would you suggest to promote readability? Can the
general term "readability" be subdivided into more specialized
areas in a useful way? How are conflicts resolved? To ask this
another way, what are the relative priorities of different
factors that go into making code readable? And to broaden the
topic, how do matters of readability relate to other concerns in
the development process (eg, maintenance, testing, etc)?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 19:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmitggt.2ot.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #60096 |
On Wed, 2015-04-15, Tim Rentsch wrote: > What makes code readable? > > In a recent thread this term came up, and it got me thinking > about the different sorts of qualities and aspects that are > commonly lumped together under the general term "readability". > Of course I have my own ideas (some more definite than others) on > the subject, but it got me wondering what other folks might have > to say about it. So I am writing this to invite your responses, > ideas, ramblings, thoughts, orations, monographs and diatribes, > on the general question of what makes code readable. Three > suggested guidelines: ... > (3) In this thread please limit remarks to matters related to > code, without regard to questions about commenting. The > related area regarding comments I will bring up in a separate > thread. But you can't separate them! Comments are intricately tied to the code: they say what needs to be said but cannot (for more or less good reasons) be said in the code itself. > To start things going, some general questions. What are > different kinds, or different aspects, of readability? Do > different aspects interact, or are they mostly independent? What > habits, or development practices, or guidelines, or rules of > thumb, etc, would you suggest to promote readability? Can the > general term "readability" be subdivided into more specialized > areas in a useful way? How are conflicts resolved? To ask this > another way, what are the relative priorities of different > factors that go into making code readable? And to broaden the > topic, how do matters of readability relate to other concerns in > the development process (eg, maintenance, testing, etc)? Very broadly, it's like any writing except maybe poetry. It's readable if the author can get her idea across; if you can see in the easiest possible way what she's trying to do. Honesty and humility are good guidelines too; it's so confusing when someone tries to masquerade bad code as good code using cosmetics. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-30 02:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn383ic7nh.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #60101 |
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes: > On Wed, 2015-04-15, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> What makes code readable? >> >> In a recent thread this term came up, and it got me thinking >> about the different sorts of qualities and aspects that are >> commonly lumped together under the general term "readability". >> Of course I have my own ideas (some more definite than others) on >> the subject, but it got me wondering what other folks might have >> to say about it. So I am writing this to invite your responses, >> ideas, ramblings, thoughts, orations, monographs and diatribes, >> on the general question of what makes code readable. Three >> suggested guidelines: > > ... > >> (3) In this thread please limit remarks to matters related to >> code, without regard to questions about commenting. The >> related area regarding comments I will bring up in a separate >> thread. > > But you can't separate them! Comments are intricately tied to the > code: they say what needs to be said but cannot (for more or less > good reasons) be said in the code itself. I'm not sure what it is you're saying here. Do you think that code without comments is always completely unreadable? Or that if we take any two pieces of code and take the comments out that the two are always equally readable (or equally unreadable)? Of course it is the case that comments can enhance readability. Surely though if we look at two pieces of code after stripping out comments one may be more readable than the other - right? What are the factors that affect readability after comments have been removed? >> To start things going, some general questions. What are >> different kinds, or different aspects, of readability? Do >> different aspects interact, or are they mostly independent? What >> habits, or development practices, or guidelines, or rules of >> thumb, etc, would you suggest to promote readability? Can the >> general term "readability" be subdivided into more specialized >> areas in a useful way? How are conflicts resolved? To ask this >> another way, what are the relative priorities of different >> factors that go into making code readable? And to broaden the >> topic, how do matters of readability relate to other concerns in >> the development process (eg, maintenance, testing, etc)? > > Very broadly, it's like any writing except maybe poetry. It's > readable if the author can get her idea across; if you can see in > the easiest possible way what she's trying to do. Honesty and > humility are good guidelines too; it's so confusing when someone > tries to masquerade bad code as good code using cosmetics. The point of my question is to identify what qualities make code readable. Your comments here are more like "advice to authors". What does good code look like? Of course we would like writing that is clear and communicates quickly and easily; the question is what sort of writing does that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <65534739-2a4a-43e3-93cc-03f70651a8f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60096 |
For me, I think a major component of readability is size---or rather, modularity. If I can see a function in its entirety in an editor window without having to scroll, it makes a significant difference in terms of ease of understanding it. I don't have to keep track of some part I can't see, and I don't have to move things around to look at it. This is one of the reasons I miss tractor feed paper. Of course, there are two caveats. One is that a function must be written with a conventional amount of space and clarity, and not made illegible in the name of making it smaller. The other is that I get lost trying to understand insanely factored programs where the logic I am looking for is always in some other function. To be readable, a single function should concisely express an idea but without leaving out any details necessary to grok the program logic at that level. --S
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmivd1p.2ot.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #60103 |
On Wed, 2015-04-15, Xcott Craver wrote: > The other is that I get lost trying to understand insanely factored > programs where the logic I am looking for is always in some other function. > To be readable, a single function should concisely express an idea but > without leaving out any details necessary to grok the program logic at that > level. I wonder what you would think of my code ... I frequently simplify large functions by introducing helper functions, which I place nearby in the code. I only do it, though, if I can give the helper decent semantics, so you can read a call to it without having to worry about its internals. I hope that addresses your "any details necessary to grok the program logic at that level". /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-30 02:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfny4laarxp.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #60103 |
Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> writes: > For me, I think a major component of readability is size---or > rather, modularity. If I can see a function in its entirety in an > editor window without having to scroll, it makes a significant > difference in terms of ease of understanding it. I don't have to > keep track of some part I can't see, and I don't have to move > things around to look at it. This is one of the reasons I miss > tractor feed paper. I'm with you on this one. For me, production-quality code has a hard limit on width of 79 characters, a firm limit on height of about about 35 lines, and a much firmer limit on height of what can be printed on a single page (nominally 60 lines). > Of course, there are two caveats. One is that a function must be > written with a conventional amount of space Can you be more specific about what you think that is? > and clarity, Clarity is almost a synonym for readability. What qualities or properties provide clarity? > and not made illegible in the name of making it smaller. I don't think you mean "illegible" exactly, unless you're talking about bad handwriting. But ignoring that quibble, again the question is what qualities or properties make the code easy (or possible) to assimilate? > The other is that I get lost trying to understand insanely > factored programs where the logic I am looking for is always in > some other function. To be readable, a single function should > concisely express an idea but without leaving out any details > necessary to grok the program logic at that level. I sort of agree on this, but would say it rather differently. Namely, that each function body should be able to be read independently, without having to read the definitions of the functions it calls. The best way to do this, when possible, is by choosing function names that are evocative enough so that what they do can be inferred adequately just by seeing the name.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 01:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mgn1ln$svh$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #60096 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > What makes code readable? Order of presentation. I think to do a good job of that you need a literate programming tool a la Knuth. I've had zero experience writing large literate projects. It seems to me that the "literalization" would slow things down too much... but then I recall a Slashdot interview of Don Knuth where he states that he *saved* time programming in WEB. (He also says he never took to unit testing because it would slow him down, but personally *I* save time by writing tests. Go figure). So. Writing in C withut a literate front-end, I do my best to document my APIs in my public header files. Data structures, public function declarations with comments. The comments describe arguments, preconditions, return values, postconditions. Sorry, but as Jorgen pointed out the comments are an integral part of this. In the implementation files I use a lot of forward declarations. That way I can write higher-level code using primitives that I already introduced but that I will deliver further down. Typically that means calling a static function_with_self_descriptive_name() instead of writing a long code block, even if the function is referenced only once. Hopefully the compiler will inline. -- pa at panix dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-30 02:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfntwvyare8.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #60108 |
pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >> What makes code readable? > > Order of presentation. I agree on that, absolutely. > I think to do a good job of that you need a literate programming > tool a la Knuth. Can you elaborate on your reasoning there? ISTM that a Knuth-like LP tool might be helpful, but not necessary. > I've had zero experience writing large literate projects. It seems > to me that the "literalization" would slow things down too much... > but then I recall a Slashdot interview of Don Knuth where he states > that he *saved* time programming in WEB. (He also says he never > took to unit testing because it would slow him down, but personally > *I* save time by writing tests. Go figure). Interesting. > So. Writing in C withut a literate front-end, I do my best to > document my APIs in my public header files. Data structures, public > function declarations with comments. The comments describe > arguments, preconditions, return values, postconditions. Sorry, but > as Jorgen pointed out the comments are an integral part of this. Of course comments can contribute to readability. My question here is what qualities or properties of the code itself contribute to readability. > In the implementation files I use a lot of forward declarations. I write code assuming all functions will be forward declared. > That way I can write higher-level code using primitives that I > already introduced but that I will deliver further down. Typically > that means calling a static function_with_self_descriptive_name() > instead of writing a long code block, even if the function is > referenced only once. Hopefully the compiler will inline. Using what is generally called a top-down development model. I'm with you on this one - code written bottom-up is much harder to read.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-01 02:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mhun44$nl8$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #61294 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) writes: > > In the implementation files I use a lot of forward declarations. > I write code assuming all functions will be forward declared. > > That way I can write higher-level code using primitives that I > > already introduced but that I will deliver further down. Typically > > that means calling a static function_with_self_descriptive_name() > > instead of writing a long code block, even if the function is > > referenced only once. Hopefully the compiler will inline. > Using what is generally called a top-down development model. > I'm with you on this one - code written bottom-up is much > harder to read. Nah, I couldn't do top-down development to save my life. I always start with the lower-level stuff because I've never been able to do things any other way. But, once I have a low-level function coded and unit-tested, I move it down the file, forward-declare it up above, and start writing higher-level code after the forward declarations. You could say it's top-down presentation but it's not top-down development. -- pa at panix dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-01 04:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn1tj0pmbw.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #61341 |
pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >> pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) writes: >> >>> In the implementation files I use a lot of forward declarations. >> >> I write code assuming all functions will be forward declared. >> >>> That way I can write higher-level code using primitives that I >>> already introduced but that I will deliver further down. Typically >>> that means calling a static function_with_self_descriptive_name() >>> instead of writing a long code block, even if the function is >>> referenced only once. Hopefully the compiler will inline. >> >> Using what is generally called a top-down development model. >> I'm with you on this one - code written bottom-up is much >> harder to read. > > Nah, I couldn't do top-down development to save my life. > I always start with the lower-level stuff because I've never > been able to do things any other way. > > But, once I have a low-level function coded and unit-tested, I > move it down the file, forward-declare it up above, and start > writing higher-level code after the forward declarations. You > could say it's top-down presentation but it's not top-down > development. I see. Thank you for the clarification. I should clarify my statement also. No matter in what order code has been written, code that is /presented/ in bottom-up order is much harder to read. My comment above was meant to say more about presentation order than it was about what development methodology was used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 00:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5ebb142-f4cc-4445-80a8-cf1ad5876948@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60096 |
Tim wrote: <What makes code readable? What makes code more readable? Know the language one write Scalability [see the easy instructions from the complex ones; here we know that easier instructions are the one of cpu] Indentation Brevity [that allow indentation ] Language way and conventions Good comments Library with few primitive that simplify all [as alphabet with few letter build all meanings (power of symbols)] in both library and in language [this is because it is + easy to remember, easier for indentation in find resonance phrases in code ]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 00:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ebfb8c3b-e690-4a31-8830-eaf5a9d27fa5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60114 |
What makes code more readable? I forget: Long names for global variables, or variables have one meaning that is not easy to remember short names for local variables or loop variable, or language keywords variables especially if they are few (20 -> 30)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-30 02:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnpp6maqyw.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #60114 |
asetofsymbols@gmail.com writes: > Tim wrote: > <What makes code readable? > > What makes code more readable? > > Know the language one write Good advice, even if not exactly an answer to my question. > Scalability [see the easy instructions from the complex ones; > here we know that easier instructions are the one of cpu] I don't see what you're getting at here. Can you elaborate? > Indentation Definitely. > Brevity [that allow indentation ] What do you mean by that? Can you give an example? > Language way and conventions What I think you mean here is using common idioms and patterns. Is that right? Or do you mean something different? > Good comments Yes, there is another thread for that area. > Library Do you mean using standard libraries to get things done? If not that then what? > with few primitive that simplify all > [as alphabet with few letter > build all meanings (power of symbols)] > in both library and in language > [this is because it is + easy to > remember, easier for indentation > in find resonance phrases in code ] Are you talking about using macros to define common symbols? If not then could you explain further?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-30 05:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30e088d6-e909-4b37-adfe-c53f3c230bed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #61297 |
Tim wrote: > with few primitive that simplify all > [as alphabet with few letter > build all meanings (power of symbols)] > in both library and in language > [this is because it is + easy to > remember, easier for indentation > in find resonance phrases in code ] Are you talking about using macros to define common symbols? If not then could you explain further? # no I speak of language and # language library # with few key word or few function # can resolve easily a large # set of problems
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-01 04:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnwq0so7ey.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #61321 |
asetofsymbols@gmail.com writes: > Tim wrote: >> asetofsymbols@gmail.com writes: >>> with few primitive that simplify all >>> [as alphabet with few letter >>> build all meanings (power of symbols)] >>> in both library and in language >>> [this is because it is + easy to >>> remember, easier for indentation >>> in find resonance phrases in code ] >> >> Are you talking about using macros to define common symbols? >> If not then could you explain further? > > no I speak of language and > language library > with few key word or few function > can resolve easily a large > set of problems I think I see what you're getting at - that it helps having and using a library that provides a core set of standard operations, relatively few in number but which provide powerful capabilities both individually and in combination. Is this what you mean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-01 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5aec39a4-c2b4-4989-9ef1-616862a40718@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #61349 |
Tim wrote: <<I think I see what you're getting at - that it helps having and using a library that provides a core set of standard operations, relatively few in number but which provide powerful capabilities both individually and in combination. Is this what you mean?>> Yes, especially "in combination"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-02 23:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9d8bb0b-4daf-404b-a1d7-1dfef87b8c75@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #61359 |
Un linguaggio senza scalabilità non vale niente. Un linguaggio in cui uno non si può ricavare dall'istruzione più complessa le semplici istruzioni in cui essa é composta (nel caso del linguaggio C le istruzioni in assembly) non vale niente
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-08 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <554d21ec.33359796@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #61415 |
asetofsymbols@gmail.com wrote: > Un linguaggio senza scalabilit=E0 > non vale niente. > > Un linguaggio in cui uno non si > pu=F2 ricavare dall'istruzione > pi=F9 complessa > le semplici istruzioni in cui > essa =E9 composta > > (nel caso del linguaggio C > le istruzioni in assembly) > > non vale niente Mate, it isn't any less bollocks if you state it in a prettier language. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-08 16:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f48c557-2947-43d3-af95-e5f9440f12d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #61785 |
Than I repeat it in the foreign language: One programming language that is not scalable that from complex instruction one can not see all micro instruction that complex instruction is formed: Has no value I for error wrote #define u8 unsigned int where u8 would be unsigned char instead If C language not allow to see the micro instructions I never should hope to correct that error. I correct it because in one vector write I seen the instruction add 4 char to pointer instead of 1 char and use imagination
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-09 16:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mil4ml$k6r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61793 |
On 09/05/15 01:15, asetofsymbols@gmail.com wrote: > Than I repeat it in the foreign language: > One programming language that is > not scalable > that from complex instruction > one can not see all micro > instruction that complex instruction > is formed: Has no value > > I for error wrote > #define u8 unsigned int > where u8 would be unsigned char instead > > If C language not allow to see > the micro instructions > I never should hope to correct > that error. > I correct it because in one > vector write I seen the instruction > add 4 char to pointer > instead of 1 char > and use imagination > And if you just used the standard type uint8_t, then you would never have had the problem in the first place.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 16 [1] 2 3 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web