On 24/11/2019 18:20, Seth Hillbrand wrote:
>
> I generally like both of these. But part of that is because my IDE (VS
> Code and sometimes Eclipse) shows me the underlying type(...)
I second Seth. Also use VScode, great editor ;-)
T.
___
Mailing
A good IDE should be able to open up auto and typedef in a tooltip. Clang
library helps here, for example Qt Creator uses it and shows the actual
type when I hover over auto.
Eeli Kaikkonen
su 24. marrask. 2019 klo 19.10 Wayne Stambaugh (stambau...@gmail.com)
kirjoitti:
> On 11/24/19 7:12 AM,
Le 24/11/2019 à 18:09, Wayne Stambaugh a écrit :
> On 11/24/19 7:12 AM, Jeff Young wrote:
>> Personally I hate OPT (because it’s somewhat harder to read and
>> more-than-somewhat harder to debug).
>
> I tend to agree with Jeff. The older I get, the less I like having to
> dig around the code
On 2019-11-24 09:09, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
I also dislike auto, except in the case of stl::’s overly-verbose
iterators. Again, they make the code harder to read more often than
not.
I'm seriously rethinking typedefs as well. I can never seem to
remember
the type they represent so I have
On 11/24/19 7:12 AM, Jeff Young wrote:
> Personally I hate OPT (because it’s somewhat harder to read and
> more-than-somewhat harder to debug).
I tend to agree with Jeff. The older I get, the less I like having to
dig around the code base to figure out what is going on because
templated code
Personally I hate OPT (because it’s somewhat harder to read and
more-than-somewhat harder to debug).
I also dislike auto, except in the case of stl::’s overly-verbose iterators.
Again, they make the code harder to read more often than not.
Maybe I’m just showing my age….
> On 24 Nov 2019, at
What is the current consensus on using OPT types in the code? I know there
are some instances where we are already using them from the Boost library
(since our C++ version isn't high enough to include them), but is that
considered a good type to use more of?
I am curious, because I am thinking of
7 matches
Mail list logo
