This is the mail archive of the 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 Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:13:27AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Richard Sandiford
> <> wrote:
> > Michael Matz <> 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).

what about a_foo for arguments?  I'd prefer m_/s_foo for members /
static things too fwiw.


> Richard.
> > Thanks,
> > Richard

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