On 11/10/2017 20:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Rhodri James <rho...@kynesim.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/10/17 15:36, Chris Angelico wrote:
That's only really one level more complex than declarations I use fairly
regularly (I am an embedded system programmer most of the time). On the
other hand, I never actually do declare things in that way: typedef is your
friend, and makes your C code much easier to read.
I wouldn't consider embedded systems to be the most common kind of C
coding out there, particularly when people compare against C++ (I
don't remember ever hearing of anyone doing embedded work in C++,
though I'm sure it does happen). Nevertheless, you're exactly right
about the typedefs. Writing crazily complicated type declarations
without typedefs is like writing massively nested list comprehensions
without intermediate variables. Hey look, Python's terrible! Or maybe
they're just non-idiomatic examples.
Look at my last example posted a few minutes before this.
You'd say the C needed typedefs.
But in the original language, type declarations are clear enough that
they don't need typedefs.
The typedefs help to mitigate a problem in one language that doesn't
exist in the other. Surely it's better to have neither the cryptic type
nor the typedef. Everything would be much cleaner.
--
bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
