Hi Ralph, Ralph Corderoy wrote on Sun, May 06, 2018 at 12:19:44AM +0100: >> Even though you are right > ... >> i strongly object to your argument.
> I don't know what you think my argument is. I thought your argument was "usually, writing char const is better than writing const char". >> [objective simplicity] undeniably favours "char const", > That was my point. Though the widespread conventional method has that > in its favour, it doesn't mean the more logical consistent one is wrong > or misleading. It mainly means the alternative hasn't been considered > for its merits, just dismissed because it `looks odd'. A knee-jerker. Granted. Well, not so much "looks odd", but "people are not used to it and get distracted from what really matters". >> Enjoy changing it all over place. > Sigh. I made very clear: "I accept it isn't groff's style". > I'm not trying to change groff, or anybody's style. > I am trying to explain how C works because at least two experienced C > programmers on this list thought they weren't equivalent and that > Branden and I were therefore mistaken and creating errors in using it. Sorry for that remark, it was misleading. I didn't mean to imply you wanted to rewrite groff, but i see how my remark left that impression. >> In practice, coding styles using "char const" are rare to the point >> that i wasn't even aware until now that they exist at all. > Same here if I go back a couple of years. >> It is *not* a coincidence that the colleague you got the idea from >> "had no external influences". > That's the one that *persuaded* me of its merits. Before that, I'd just > seen it and thought `Why write the equivalent thing in that odd way?'. > I've seen its use growing. I suspect more projects will switch. > Branden was already using that style and that wasn't my influence. > Perhaps you're in a bit of a silo? :-) Perhaps. :-) >> This is not one of them, so adopting it is clearly a terrible idea. > I think you're wrong. I'm adopting it. I suspect over the medium term > its use will grow. Other aspects of C style have also changed over the > decades. That is true, like K&R vs. ANSI style for function definitions, to name an important one, or "return (0);" becoming "return 0;", to name a minor, trivial one. We shall see what the future brings. In this respect, more style fragmentation for little gain - since this really isn't what makes pointers and arrays difficult - seems the most likely outcome to me. In a little corner where style is still mostly globally consistent nowadays. Anyway, that is what style is: Anyone can have one's own, even if others dislike it, and there are often arguments both ways. Yours, Ingo