I personally prefer Port *p out of habit. Plus, now that I am old, that habit will probably die hard :).
While, like Nilay, I don't think it affects my ability to read a piece of code, it does make a difference in searching code...looking for all places where you declare a pointer to a Port is more easily attained if you only have to search for "Port *". I think that trends slightly stronger towards consistency, but it's not the hugest deal. Lisa On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote: > I think i is completely inconsequential where the * is placed. I don't > think it would affect, in whatever fashion, my ability to read and > understand a piece of code. > > -- > Nilay > > > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > Yes, thanks William for the pointers, that was informative. >> >> Andreas may be following Mr. C++, but some of us learned to code on K&R, >> so >> we have history on our side! Plus as one of the stackoverflow commenters >> said, "Note: Bjarne is not the authority on style he is just a person". >> That might also be true for K&R, though the matter is more debatable ;-). >> >> Basically this is not an argument about which is better though. I think >> there are good arguments on both sides, and if we were starting from >> scratch I might be convinced to use "Port* p". But given the amount of >> code we already have, and that "Port* p" isn't enough better to justify >> rewriting everything, I think there are just two choices: >> >> A. Agree that consistency isn't critical here, and let people do >> whichever >> one they want. >> B. Agree that consistency is important and force people like Andreas to >> deal with "Port *p". >> >> To me, the choice is really about the importance of consistency vs. >> minimizing the onerousness (onerosity?) of the style rules. Sounds like >> Gabe and I are on the fence, while Korey is for B. Nate? Ali? Anyone >> else? >> >> Steve >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Korey Sewell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks William, that was thorough! >>> >>> I prefer the Port *p personally and maybe that's just old habit. >>> >>> And since most of the old code is that way, we should replace-in-file any >>> differences to the "old way" and then update the style guide. >>> >>> And I nominate Nate to add in a gem5 style hook to enforce this (haha, >>> j/k)! >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:17 AM, William Wang <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> int* p; // OO Style, Type emphasis >>>> int *p; // Procedural style, Expression emphasis >>>> int * p; // Unconventional Style, No emphasis >>>> >>>> A public coding style from Google: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://google-styleguide.**googlecode.com/svn/trunk/** >>> cppguide.xml#Pointer_and_**Reference_Expressions<http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml#Pointer_and_Reference_Expressions> >>> >>>> // These are fine, space preceding. >>>> char *c; >>>> const string &str; >>>> >>>> // These are fine, space following. >>>> char* c; // but remember to do "char* c, *d, *e, ...;"! >>>> const string& str; >>>> >>>> char * c; // Bad - spaces on both sides of * >>>> const string & str; // Bad - spaces on both sides of & >>>> >>>> A discussion on stackoverflow: >>>> What's your preferred pointer declaration style, and why? >>>> >>>> >>>> http://stackoverflow.com/**questions/377164/whats-your-** >>> preferred-pointer-declaration-**style-and-why<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/377164/whats-your-preferred-pointer-declaration-style-and-why> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are >>>> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended >>>> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the >>>> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy >>>> >>> the >>> >>>> information in any medium. Thank you. >>>> >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> gem5-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/**listinfo/gem5-dev<http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Korey >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> gem5-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/**listinfo/gem5-dev<http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >> gem5-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/**listinfo/gem5-dev<http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/**listinfo/gem5-dev<http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev> > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
