This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments
On 10/04/2016 04:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
An enumeration type, overloads or a different function name seem
preferable to me, though often the latter two approaches often degrade
into precisely what we're trying to avoid.
On 4 October 2016 at 10:21, David Brown wrote:
On 04/10/16 01:48, Martin Sebor wrote:
In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention
commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments
in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment
along the lines of
foo (1, 2, /*bar_p=*/true);
I like this convention at the call-site, otherwise "true" or "false"
doesn't tell you much and you have to look at the declaration.
IMHO even better is to not use bool and define an enumeration type, so
the call site has something unambiguous like foo (1, 2, yes_bar) or
foo (1, 2, no_bar).
However, if there's a general agreement that the comments are OK, then I
won't argue against them.