On 4/26/18 3:43 PM, Vern Paxson wrote:
>> E.g. say you come back to some code after a few months and see "foo += >> 1". Not obvious what 'foo' is anymore. > > I don't think it's reasonable to have the bar be "can you tell what's going > on in isolation". It should include consideration of associated context, > variable names, and comments. In fact, even now you don't know whether > for "foo += 1" foo is an integer, a count, or a double. Yeah, it was maybe a bit of a stretch -- more just an observation I was trying to see if we could run with. Also in relation to my recent experiences with trying to read/debug some C++ code with a lot of operator usage I found myself wishing some were just a named function call so I could more easily navigate the code and even just find where certain operators were defined/declared. So the point I'm at now is that it would probably be nice not to have multiple operators for the same thing, though don't have a strong feeling about it. - Jon _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev