On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Michael Matz <m...@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.