Stylistic questions on UNIX C coding.
in [Unix Programming]
|
Prev: integer
Next: shared memory question
From: Eric Sosman on 1 Mar 2010 17:17 On 3/1/2010 4:32 PM, Julienne Walker wrote: > On Mar 1, 4:15 pm, ralt...(a)xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) wrote: >> Julienne Walker<happyfro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On Feb 24, 2:21=A0pm, Fred<fred.l.kleinschm...(a)boeing.com> wrote: >>>> On Feb 24, 11:10=A0am, Julienne Walker<happyfro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Feb 24, 1:35=A0pm, Poster Matt<postermatt(a)no_spam_for_me.org> wrote= >>>>>> 4. Does anyone care where the pointer * is? I prefer keeping to next = >>>>>> to the type, rather than next to the variable name. >> >>>>>> EG. I like: char* firstName; and not so much: char *firstName; >> >>>>> Just make sure you're consistent and nobody will care. :-) >> >>>> Except that it is very error-prone to do so. >> >>> It's only error prone if you have multiple variables in a declaration >>> statement (which the OP's example did not). That itself is often >>> viewed as an unsafe practice. >> >> Incorrectly. I would much rather see > > I'm sorry you disagree. Perhaps if you made it clear to everyone in > the world what you'd rather see, they'll change their beliefs to suit > your style. ;-) I'm with Richard on this one. When you have a bunch of "obviously related" variables of the same type, there's little to be gained and something to be lost by strewing the declarations over multiple lines. double rx, ry, rz; /* position */ double vx, vy, vz; /* velocity */ double ax, ay, az; /* acceleration */ .... is, to my eye, a lot more readable than /* position */ double rx; double ry; double rz; /* velocity */ double vx; double vy; double vz; /* acceleration */ double ax; double ay; double az; Even when there are only two variables int compare(const void *pp, const void *qq) { const struct jimjam *p = pp, *q = qq; .... seems preferable to the one-per-line alternative: It moves briskly past the boiler-plate preliminaries and helps the attention proceed to the business at hand. On the other hand, I'd agree that int count, statusflag, i, modelnumber, j, k, errno_save; .... is objectionable. -- Eric Sosman esosman(a)ieee-dot-org.invalid
From: Ike Naar on 1 Mar 2010 18:24 In article <vsTin.1958$qi1.782(a)news.usenetserver.com>, Scott Lurndal <slp53(a)pacbell.net> wrote: >Personally, I dislike like if expressions that evaluate with side >effects, I would >declare temps and move the scanfs outside the if statement. It improves the >readability too. But that was not the point; the point was to make the if condition too large to fit on a single line. The expressions were chosen more or less at random just to illustrate that point.
From: Nick Keighley on 2 Mar 2010 03:28 On 1 Mar, 21:50, Ian Collins <ian-n...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Julienne Walker wrote: > > I'm sorry you disagree. Perhaps if you made it clear to everyone in > > the world what you'd rather see, they'll change their beliefs to suit > > your style. ;-) > > Eh? He did! some people think there's a world outside clc!
From: Nick Keighley on 2 Mar 2010 03:32 On 27 Feb, 17:50, Casper H.S. Dik <Casper....(a)Sun.COM> wrote: > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >On 27 Feb, 13:56, Casper H.S. Dik <Casper....(a)Sun.COM> wrote: > >> i...(a)localhost.claranet.nl (Ike Naar) writes: > > >> Things I absolutely hate in some c-styles are: > > >> if(condition) > > >> "if" is a not a *function* it shouldn't look like one. > > >I write it like this > > if (condition) > > some_func (x); /* <-- NOTE WELL */ > > >and 'if' still doesn't look like a function to me > > It is fine with the space but not without (if() vs if ()) the point I was making was that I put the space in front of the bracket BOTH for 'if' AND for a function invocation.
From: Nick Keighley on 2 Mar 2010 03:35
On 27 Feb, 16:39, Rich Webb <bbew...(a)mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:30:16 -0800 (PST), Nick Keighley > <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On 27 Feb, 08:39, James Harris <james.harri...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Windows Notepad users are stuck with 8. Windows Wordpad users seem to > >> be stuck with 6. These are not earlier than the 1980s. > > >> Come to think of it, apart from those two programs what do Windows > >> users use to enter and edit source code? > > >the IDE, ConText, emacs, Word > > vi! Nowadays likely in its gvim incarnation, of course. VI VI VI! the editor of the beast |