Re: [PATCH] Trivial cleanup

[Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>]

On 09/25/2013 11:33 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> I was looking at the vec class to figure out the best way to do some 
> things and realized we have a "last" member function.  Using 
> foo.last() is clearer than foo[foo.length() - 1]
>
> On a related note, our current standards require a space between a 
> function name and the open paren for its argument list.  However, it 
> leads to fugly code in some cases.  Assume foo is an vec instance and 
> we want to look at something in the last vector element.  Our current 
> standards would imply something like this:
>
> foo.last ()->bar
>
>
> Which is how the current patch formats that code.  However, I 
> typically see this more often in C++ codebases as
>
> foo.last()->bar
>
> But then, what if we just want the last element without peeking deeper 
> inside it?
>
> foo.last ()?
>
> or
>
> foo.last()?
>
>
> Do we want to make any changes in our style guidelines to handle this 
> better?

I noticed that with the wrapper conversion, often you will get a 
sequence of 3 or more method calls, and its quite unbearable to have the 
spaces.
simple things like
  int unsignedsrcp = ptrvar.type().type().type_unsigned();
vs
  int unsignedsrcp = ptrvar.type ().type ().type_unsigned ();

I was going to bring it up at some point too.  My preference is strongly 
to simply eliminate the space on methods...

Andrew