Re: [PATCH] Trivial cleanup

[Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> > > I was going to bring it up at some point too.  My preference is
>> > > strongly to simply eliminate the space on methods...
>> > Which wouldn't be so weird: in the libstdc++-v3 code we do it all the time.
>> Yea.  I actually reviewed the libstdc++ guidelines to see where they differed
>> from GNU's C guidelines.
>>
>> I'm strongly in favor of dropping the horizontal whitespace between the
>> method name and its open paren when the result is then dereferenced.
>> ie foo.last()->e rather than foo.last ()->e.
>
> I'd prefer to not write in this style at all, like Jakub.  If we must
> absolutely have it, then I agree that the space before _empty_ parentheses
> are ugly if followed by references.  I.e. I'd like to see spaces before
> parens as is customary, except in one case: empty parens in the middle of
> expressions (which don't happen very often right now in GCC, and hence
> wouldn't introduce a coding style confusion):
>
> do.this ();
> give.that()->flag;
> get.list (one)->clear ();
>
> I'd prefer to not have further references to return values be applied,
> though (as in, the parentheses should be the end of statement), which
> would avoid the topic (at the expensive of having to invent names for
> those temporaries, or to write trivial wrapper methods contracting several
> method calls).

Seconded, even give.that()->flag; is ugly.

Richard.