This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] manage dom-walk_data initialization and finalization with constructors and destructors


On 09/20/2013 02:13 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Richard Sandiford
<rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> writes:
What's the benefit of reading and writing such noisy lines? :

       *out_mode = mode_;
       mode_ = GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (mode_);
       count_++;

The uglification merely makes code harder to write and read, it should be
used in cases where you _don't_ want developers to write such names.

Heh.  Since it's my code being used as the example here: I also find it
very ugly FWIW.  I only added the underscores because that's what the
conventions said.

But we're never going to get consensus on this kind of thing.  E.g. I
know some people really hate the GNU formatting style (although I very
much like it).  So I just held my nose while writing the patch.

Btw, I've come around multiple coding-styles in the past and I definitely
would prefer m_mode / m_count to mark members vs. mode_ and count_.
(and s_XXX for static members IIRC).
That would be fine with me. If you want to propose this as a change to our coding standards, I'd support it. Then it's just a matter of changing the existing code.. Sigh..

jeff


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]