Difference between revisions of "Talk:Code Style"
(Thoughts about operators and control blocks.) |
|||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
--[[User:Boolsheet|Boolsheet]] 20:07, 26 June 2012 (BST) | --[[User:Boolsheet|Boolsheet]] 20:07, 26 June 2012 (BST) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Pointer affinity == | ||
+ | I didn't expect that change. Why would you want to make it look like an indirection or address-of? Then again, personal preference. | ||
+ | |||
+ | --[[User:Boolsheet|Boolsheet]] 02:10, 28 June 2012 (BST) |
Revision as of 01:10, 28 June 2012
Math and stuff
There are other operators that may need a style enforced on them.
The following should be straightforward.
x = foo::bar; x = foo->bar; x = foo.bar; ++foo; bar--; x = foo[bar]; x = -foo; x = !foo; x = ~foo; x = *foo; x = &foo; delete[] foo;
But what about C casts?
x = (foo)bar; x = (foo) bar;
Or go C++ all the way with casts? I personally don't like the noise C++ casts add even though they might help catch an error early while writing code.
--Boolsheet 20:07, 26 June 2012 (BST)
Control blocks
What about situations where the blocks have mixed one- and multi-liners? Should it always use braces?
if (foo) bar; else { moreFoo; moreBar; }
if (foo) { bar; } else { moreFoo; moreBar; }
There's also the temptation of packing everything together on one line if it is very short.
if (foo) return 0;
if (foo) return 0;
--Boolsheet 20:07, 26 June 2012 (BST)
Pointer affinity
I didn't expect that change. Why would you want to make it look like an indirection or address-of? Then again, personal preference.
--Boolsheet 02:10, 28 June 2012 (BST)