Daniel Grunblatt wrote:
On Friday 05 September 2003 12:34, Steve Fink wrote:
In my own coding, I follow the rule of "leave it out if the type tells
you everything you need to know about the purpose." But that's a
subjective decision, and therefore dangerous to put in a coding style
guide.
On Friday 05 September 2003 12:34, Steve Fink wrote:
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:39:23AM +0300, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote:
> >>D. Function parametres in declarations.
> >>
> >>At the monent, pdd7 says that we mustn't omit them in declarations.
> >>I propose to omit them. The
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:39:23AM +0300, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote:
D. Function parametres in declarations.
At the monent, pdd7 says that we mustn't omit them in declarations.
I propose to omit them. The advantage is: We wouldn't run the risk to
having a keyword of C++ as
> > C. #if defined/undefined vs 0/1 issue
> >
> > I'm for ifdef/ifndef.
>
> For complex combinations of conditionals you have to write things like
>
> #if defined(A) || defined (B)
Sure. But I didn't precisely mean ifdef/ifndef. I was and am for
defined/undefined and used ifdef/ifndef there just a
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:39:23AM +0300, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote:
> C. #if defined/undefined vs 0/1 issue
>
> I'm for ifdef/ifndef.
For complex combinations of conditionals you have to write things like
#if defined(A) || defined (B)
but I think that we can live with that.
> D. Function parame
This patch adds a new item to the must part of pdd7.
Pdd7's still missing:
A. Solving the problem of typedef struct a *a
Summarizng Leo's, Juergen's, and Brent's ideas,
I propose the following:
To have an underscore prepended to the stuct ParrotInterp.
To use ParrotInterp defined as typedef str
