On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 12:24 PM Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 11:02 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 6:07 AM Charles R Harris < >> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 12:02 AM Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+nu...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for the first step on this! >>>> >>>> Should we allow // style comments >>>> >>>> I don’t think it matters too much. I think it might be a little messy >>>> to have a mix of the two styles where // means “post py3” and /* */ >>>> means pre-py3 - but at the same time, I do slightly prefer the C++-style. >>>> For C contributors coming from python, I’d expect that it feels more >>>> natural to only have to put a comment marker at the start of the line. We >>>> could convert the /**/-style to //-style with a tool, but it’s >>>> probably not worth the churn or time. >>>> >>>> Should we allow variable declarations after code >>>> >>>> I’d be very strongly in favor of this - it makes it much easier to >>>> extract helper functions if variables are declared as late as they can be - >>>> plus it make it easier to reason about early returns not needing goto >>>> fail. >>>> >>>> Related to this feature, I think allowing for(int i = 0; i < N; i++) >>>> is a clear win. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>> >>> Thinking about this some more, a good argument for going to full C99 is >>> that outside code written in that style can be brought in without a lot of >>> work. >>> >> >> Agreed. And we already have the pocketfft PR to prove that. >> > > Hmm, maybe C_STYLE_GUIDE.rst.txt should be an NEP? > +1
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
