There is an other.
int * p;Here is an otter
:)
i am in this picture and i do like it
Male otters kidnap children otters and hold them for ransom until the mum gives them food.
I’ve seen that in style guides ”because it should piss of everyone equally”.
Having an asterisk both be the type indicator and the dereference operator is one of the great programming language design blunders of our time, along with allowing nulls for any type in so many languages.
I also sometimes wish that the syntax in
ifstatements was inverted, where()was optional and{}was required.Rust makes this choice and it is way better.
Based
Can you give me an example? I’m not sure I follow. Might be language specific?
if(condition) statement; Is valid in typical C-style syntax.
if condition { … }
Is invalid in typical C-style syntax
Gotcha, thanks.
The code in the image is C or C++ or similar. In those languages and languages derived from them, curly braces are optional but the parentheses are required. It should be the other way around to avoid logic errors like this:
if (some expression) doSomething() else if (some other expression) printf(“some debugging code that’s only here temporarily”); doSomethingElse();Based on the indentation you’d think that
doSomethingElsewas only meant to run if theelse ifcondition was true, but because of the lack of braces and theprintfit actually happens regardless of either of theifconditions. This can sometimes lead to logic errors and it doesn’t hold up to a principle of durability under edit — that is, inserting some code into theifstatement changes the outcome entirely because it changes the code path entirely, so the code is in a sense fragile to edits. If the curly braces were required instead of optional, this wouldn’t happen.I have all of my linters set up to flag a lack of curly braces in these languages as an error because of this. It’s a topic that sometimes causes some debate, ‘cause some people will vociferously defend their right to not have the braces there for one liners and more compact code, but I have found that in general having them be required consistently has led to fewer issues than having arguments about their absence, but to each their own. I know many big projects that have the opposite stance or have other guidelines, but I just make ‘em required on my own projects or projects that I’m in charge of and be done with it.
That makes perfect sense, thank you.
Having assignments return a value is right up there as well.
Because of the possibility of accidentally performing an assignment in a conditional expression?
If yes, I agree that it’s not great.
Yeah, exactly that.
The fact it’s a pointer is part of the type, not part of the variable name. So
int* pis the way.You would think so, but
int* a, bis actually eqivalent toint* a; int b, so the asterisk actually does go with the name. Writingint* a, *bis inconsistent, soint *a, *bis the way to go.Yeah, and I’d say that’s a design flaw of the language as it is unintuitive behaviour.
While technically true, that’s also one of the worst ‘features’ of the language and I personally consider it a bug in the language. Use two lines and make it clear and correct.
Don’t declare more than 1 pointer per line. This resolves that, badly.
Alright, I’ll never, ever write something this way now. Good to know.
This is true in C, but not in D.
Then again, at least in C, the mantra is “declaration follows usage”. Surely you don’t write pointer dereferences as
* ptr? Most likely not, you most likely write it as. The idea behind theint *ptr;syntax is basically that when you do, you get anint.And with this idea, stuff like function pointers (
int (*f)(void)), arrays of pointers (int *a[10]) versus pointers of arrays (int (*a)[10]) etc. start making sense. It’s certainly not the best way to design the syntax, and I’m as much a fan of the Pascal-styled “type follows the identifier” syntax (e.g.let x: number;) as anyone, but the C way does have a rhyme and a reason for the way it is.int* i, jThe C syntax is just messed up.
deleted by creator
It’s part of the type yet it’s also a unique identifier. That’s the whole thing with east or west
const.const int *is aimmutablemutable pointer that points tomutableimmutable memory.int *constis amutableimmutable pointer that points toimmutablememory.int const *is the same type as the first example, aimmutablemutable pointer that points tomutableimmutable memory.Same stuff applies to references which makes it easier to think of the variable owning the
*or&as if you want that pointer or reference to beconstit has to go after.Edit:I am a moron who managed to get it exactly backwards :|
Found the guy that can probably do function pointers!
I wrote a couple unholy lines of C++ the other day using the ternary conditional operator to select a class member function to be called with a fixed argument.
I think my teammates were too scared to call me out on it.
KISS, my guy.
It’s actually simpler than doing it the “right” way, but I wanted to see how much I could make C++ pretend it was Python.
Lol yeah. I don’t even really write C++ but I sure as shit know a bunch of syntax and junk haha
I think you’ve got it backwards. I learned to read pointer decls from right-to-left, so
const int *is a (mutable) pointer to an int which is const whileint *constis a const pointer to a (mutable) int.Fuck me man that’s what I get for writing that just before bed
I always read it right to left and it seems to make sense to me.
I do this in my code because it looks better and makes more sense…until I decide to declare 2 vars on one line and then I use the very cursed
int* a, *bI just wouldn’t do that.
tbh I always think about it as ‘p’ is a pointer to int
therefore *p is an int
therefore I should call it int *p;
however, of course, you should use what your team prefers. Having good yet inconsistent style is worst than mid consistent style.
I don’t code much C++, but then I’d lose alignment with:
x = *p;and I feel that would bug me.I’m looking at Google Style Guide for my next project and it says either is fine, just don’t declare more than one per line.
And yet the default clang formatter gets it wrong.
std::shared_ptr<int> p;I’m just a c# dev wishing to fuck we had something visual to indicate reference types so my coworkers could stop misusing them
oh thank you! I use jetbrains but I wonder if I can implement the same thing
It’s such a short list of value types though. How can they have that much trouble? All of the various ints and floats, bool, char, structs, and enums. Everything else is reference.
Wait until I tell y’all about const.
no int * ptr fans here?
Int *p is unreadable, unreasonable, and bad programming.
But C syntax clearly hints to
int *pbeing the expected format.Otherwise you would only need to do
int* p, qto declare two pointers… however doing that only declarespas pointer. You are actually required to type*in front of each variable name intended to hold a pointer in the declaration:int *p, *q;That’s because C was designed by a fool.
The fools who created Unix
And C!
What, could you have done better in 70-whatever?
Why so? It’s what it actually is
Ever written a entire php in one line? I did, and that without separation whenever possible.
Man my coworker even ended the trolling contest over that.
