Stylistic questions on UNIX C coding.
in [Unix Programming]
|
Prev: integer
Next: shared memory question
From: Curtis Dyer on 3 Mar 2010 06:56 On 02 Mar 2010, Julienne Walker <happyfrosty(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 7:04�am, Curtis Dyer <dye...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 24 Feb 2010, James Harris <james.harri...(a)googlemail.com> >> wrote: <snip> >> > - i.e. "char*" can be misleading. >> >> I think mainly to newcomers, but I can't imagine it being too >> misleading for most C programmers. > > I fail to see how char* x; is any more misleading than char *x;. > Either way the gotcha of char *x, y; still exists. Right, but visually, "char *x, y" more clearly demonstrates what the declaration actually means. Realistically though, I doubt it would be an issue for anyone, say, past their first week of learning C. <snip> > Alternatively you could sidestep the issue with typedef: > > typedef char* pchar; > > pchar x, y; > > Personally I'm not a fan of hiding levels of indirection behind > a typedef, but whatever floats your boat. Nor am I, but Microsoft sure seems to be found of that style. > Ah, much ado about a trivial matter. Such is the way of clc. ^_^ But discussions about good style is Serious Business. :-) -- "Don't worry about efficiency until you've attained correctness." ~ Eric Sosman, comp.lang.c
From: Lorenzo Villari on 3 Mar 2010 08:01 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:27:13 -0500 Joe Wright <joewwright(a)comcast.net> wrote: > It's WordStar for Unix. It's well written and functional. Why would > you be revolted by it? What's wrong with a DOS editor? 1980 was a > really great year. Get a grip. > > My most used editor on Windows is EDIT.COM and on Unix of course, vi. > I do use the GUI IDE from Visual FoxPro but normally write C and > xBASE from the command line with EDIT. > I have to ask: what's the point nowadays of using a text mode only editor, apart from hardware restrictions and years of use? I guess that's "Masochistic answers to Stylistic questions on UNIX C coding"...
From: Julienne Walker on 3 Mar 2010 08:27 On Mar 3, 6:56 am, Curtis Dyer <dye...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 02 Mar 2010, Julienne Walker <happyfro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 2, 7:04 am, Curtis Dyer <dye...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 24 Feb 2010, James Harris <james.harri...(a)googlemail.com> > >> wrote: > > >> > - i.e. "char*" can be misleading. > > >> I think mainly to newcomers, but I can't imagine it being too > >> misleading for most C programmers. > > > I fail to see how char* x; is any more misleading than char *x;. > > Either way the gotcha of char *x, y; still exists. > > Right, but visually, "char *x, y" more clearly demonstrates what > the declaration actually means. Realistically though, I doubt it > would be an issue for anyone, say, past their first week of > learning C. That's my opinion as well. I've helped a *lot* of beginners over the years, and at the moment I can't recall a single instance where there was a problem due to the "misleading" placement of an asterisk. Common problems tend to be independently discovered by virtually every beginner, so I'm inclined to say that it's not really the big problem that some paint it out to be. > > Ah, much ado about a trivial matter. Such is the way of clc. ^_^ > > But discussions about good style is Serious Business. :-) Not serious enough to warrant endless debate. Bracing styles, tabs vs. spaces, indentation amount, it's all subjective. As long as a reasonable style is used, it's not going to seriously impede one's ability to read code using that style.
From: Ersek, Laszlo on 3 Mar 2010 08:38 In article <20100303140159.04b04a3e(a)kubuntu>, Lorenzo Villari <vlllnz(a)tiscali.it> writes: > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:27:13 -0500 > Joe Wright <joewwright(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> It's WordStar for Unix. It's well written and functional. Why would >> you be revolted by it? What's wrong with a DOS editor? 1980 was a >> really great year. Get a grip. >> >> My most used editor on Windows is EDIT.COM and on Unix of course, vi. >> I do use the GUI IDE from Visual FoxPro but normally write C and >> xBASE from the command line with EDIT. >> > > I have to ask: what's the point nowadays of using a text mode only > editor, apart from hardware restrictions and years of use? I guess > that's "Masochistic answers to Stylistic questions on UNIX C coding"... One point might be "screen real estate" http://www.usabilityfirst.com/glossary/term_573.txl aka "no clutter". I use NEdit and joe. Both are very frugal. NEdit for higher-profile editing sessions, joe for the smaller stuff (commit messages, quick script edits when I'm anyway in the command line, or when editing remotely and forwarding X over ssh would be inconvenient for some reason). pico (pine's editor) for e-mails (I use pine) with occasional forks to joe (for pasting / editing code in e-mails). I used Icedove (Thunderbird), but it choked on my IMAP account. webmail is catastrophic. LSEDIT on OpenVMS -- I'm writing this message in it. ^Z enters command mode, "fill" reformats the paragraph, "exit" saves and exits. Cheers, lacos
From: Malcolm McLean on 3 Mar 2010 08:48
On Mar 3, 3:01 pm, Lorenzo Villari <vll...(a)tiscali.it> wrote: > > I have to ask: what's the point nowadays of using a text mode only > editor, apart from hardware restrictions and years of use? I guess > that's "Masochistic answers to Stylistic questions on UNIX C coding"... > A lot of big computers still don't have windowing systems. Their cycles are too expensive to be used on updating GUIs. Someone somewhere will one day produce a client that lets you edit a text file, stored on a mainframe, on a PC or workstation GUI. However I haven't yet seen such a system. Uploading files by ftp manually is too much of a nuisance. |