Getting back on topic...
At 2018-05-05T15:43:35+0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
[...]
> Please use `const int' – there is no single instance of `int const' in
> the groff code.
[...]
> >> I'd suggest adding
> >>
> >> HYPHEN_NONE = 0,
> >> HYPHEN_DEFAULT = 1,
> >> HYPHEN_MAX = 63 // Or wha
At 2018-05-06T00:19:44+0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> 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 dismi
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".
>> [obj
Hi Branden,
G. Branden Robinson wrote on Sat, May 05, 2018 at 05:20:19PM -0400:
> At 2018-05-05T20:05:20+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> P.S.
>> By the way, using "char const" doesn't make understanding
>>
>> char *const *evil[2][3];
>>
>> any easier for people who do not know the rules...
> T
Hi Ingo,
> Even though you are right
...
> i strongly object to your argument.
I don't know what you think my argument is.
> [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 log
At 2018-05-05T12:18:26-0400, Mike Bianchi wrote:
> The placement of const is _not_ a matter of style!
>
> >> For example,
> >> in C code, it is very common to see:
> >>
> >> const char *foo;
> >>
> >> which means something very different from:
> >>
> >> char const *foo;
> >
> > Actually, it
At 2018-05-05T20:05:20+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> P.S.
> By the way, using "char const" doesn't make understanding
>
> char *const *evil[2][3];
>
> any easier for people who do not know the rules...
This looks like a wonderful opportunity to embarrass myself.
"evil" is a pointer to a 2x3 ar
At 2018-05-05T15:43:35+0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> >> > + static int n_max = (HYPHEN_NOT_LAST_LINE | HYPHEN_NOT_LAST_CHARS
> >> > +| HYPHEN_NOT_FIRST_CHARS | HYPHEN_LAST_CHAR
> >> > +| HYPHEN_FIRST_CHAR);
> >>
> >> s/static int/int const/?
>
> Please use `const int' – there is no si
Hi Ralph,
Ralph Corderoy wrote on Sat, May 05, 2018 at 05:08:22PM +0100:
>> char const *foo;
> I used your syntax for decades and only switched in the last year after
> chatting to a programmer that's always done it the other way since
> introducing the Small C compiler into his company to rep
Hi Mike,
> The placement of const is _not_ a matter of style!
Yes, it is, in part.
> >> const char *foo;
> >> char const *foo;
>
> Actually it does.
No, those two have identical meaning. Really. Keith has also agreed
this. See my email to the list from a few minutes ago.
--
Cheers, R
The placement of const is _not_ a matter of style!
>> For example,
>> in C code, it is very common to see:
>>
>> const char *foo;
>>
>> which means something very different from:
>>
>> char const *foo;
>
> Actually, it doesn't. Try it.
Actually it does.
AND
char *foo const;
Also m
Hi John,
> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11332608/ may also be useful if
> > you're not used to affine transformations for 2D graphics.
>
> Ah, that doesn't really apply here because a separate element
> is used for each individual page: the viewer's layout is handled using
> plain HTML/C
Hi Keith,
> I was taught to:
>
> - find the symbol name
> - look right, for parentheses
> - look left, token by token, to find the type
Yes, that's a simplification of the `right left' rule that I first saw
in Paul and Gail Anderson's _Advanced C: Tips and Techniques_,
https://amzn.to/2rn2L
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 11:35:14AM +0200, Andreas Eder wrote:
> On Sa 05 Mai 2018 at 01:15, Tadziu Hoffmann
> wrote:
> > (BTW, most Germans who use it also pronounce it wrong,
> > namely as in "ich" instead of as in "Bach".)
>
> What do you mean by that? The sound of the 'ch' is the same in both
>> > + static int n_max = (HYPHEN_NOT_LAST_LINE | HYPHEN_NOT_LAST_CHARS
>> > +| HYPHEN_NOT_FIRST_CHARS | HYPHEN_LAST_CHAR
>> > +| HYPHEN_FIRST_CHAR);
>>
>> s/static int/int const/?
Please use `const int' – there is no single instance of `int const' in
the groff code.
>> Given the enum,
On Sa 05 Mai 2018 at 01:15, Tadziu Hoffmann
wrote:
> (BTW, most Germans who use it also pronounce it wrong,
> namely as in "ich" instead of as in "Bach".)
What do you mean by that? The sound of the 'ch' is the same in both
cases.
'Andreas ( a german native speaker :-) )
At 2018-05-05T14:01:00+0100, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 05/05/18 12:40, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > At 2018-05-05T11:51:00+0100, Keith Marshall wrote:
> >> On 05/05/18 10:48, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> >>> (Incidentally, I share your preference for putting type qualifiers
> >>> [as opposed to
Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
|> Computer Science - Brian Kernighan on successful language design
|> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg4U4r_AgJU
|> "How to succeed in language design without really trying."
|
|Very interesting. It's somewhat amusing to see that already
|in 1961 (!) the proliferati
On 05/05/18 12:40, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2018-05-05T11:51:00+0100, Keith Marshall wrote:
>> On 05/05/18 10:48, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
>>> (Incidentally, I share your preference for putting type qualifiers
>>> [as opposed to storage classes] _after_ the type name itself. It
>>> makes
Keith Marshall wrote:
|On 05/05/18 10:48, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
|> (Incidentally, I share your preference for putting type qualifiers
|> [as opposed to storage classes] _after_ the type name itself. It
|> makes complex declarations easier to understand.)
|
|Personally, I consider that
At 2018-05-05T11:51:00+0100, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 05/05/18 10:48, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > (Incidentally, I share your preference for putting type qualifiers
> > [as opposed to storage classes] _after_ the type name itself. It
> > makes complex declarations easier to understand.)
>
>
Hi Keith,
> conventionally:
>
> const int foo;
>
> is more common than:
>
> int const foo;
Agreed. Though that convention started before all the other bells and
whistles were added.
> const char *foo;
foo is a pointer to a char that's const.
> char const *foo;
foo is a pointer to a c
On 05/05/18 10:48, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> (Incidentally, I share your preference for putting type qualifiers
> [as opposed to storage classes] _after_ the type name itself. It
> makes complex declarations easier to understand.)
Personally, I consider that to be a poor choice ... especially
At 2018-05-05T10:31:48+0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi Branden,
>
> > + static int n_max = (HYPHEN_NOT_LAST_LINE | HYPHEN_NOT_LAST_CHARS
> > +| HYPHEN_NOT_FIRST_CHARS | HYPHEN_LAST_CHAR
> > +| HYPHEN_FIRST_CHAR);
>
> s/static int/int const/?
Yes, of course. Thanks! (Incidentally, I s
Hi Branden,
> + static int n_max = (HYPHEN_NOT_LAST_LINE | HYPHEN_NOT_LAST_CHARS
> +| HYPHEN_NOT_FIRST_CHARS | HYPHEN_LAST_CHAR
> +| HYPHEN_FIRST_CHAR);
s/static int/int const/?
>if (has_arg() && get_integer(&n)) {
> -if (((n & HYPHEN_FIRST_CHAR) && (n & HYPHEN_NOT_FIRST_CHARS))
25 matches
Mail list logo