Re: style convention: /*foo_p=*/ to annotate bool arguments

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 10/04/2016 04:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 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).
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.

However, if there's a general agreement that the comments are OK, then I 
won't argue against them.
Jeff