Thanks for the first step on this! Should we allow // style comments
I don’t think it matters too much. I think it might be a little messy to have a mix of the two styles where // means “post py3” and /* */ means pre-py3 - but at the same time, I do slightly prefer the C++-style. For C contributors coming from python, I’d expect that it feels more natural to only have to put a comment marker at the start of the line. We could convert the /**/-style to //-style with a tool, but it’s probably not worth the churn or time. Should we allow variable declarations after code I’d be very strongly in favor of this - it makes it much easier to extract helper functions if variables are declared as late as they can be - plus it make it easier to reason about early returns not needing goto fail. Related to this feature, I think allowing for(int i = 0; i < N; i++) is a clear win. Eric On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 18:56 Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com <http://mailto:charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi All, > > I've a PR up converting travis testing to use C99 > <https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11905>. I suspect we may not want to > merge it for a while, but it does raise a couple of style questions that we > should probably settle up front. Namely: > > > - Should we allow // style comments > - Should we allow variable declarations after code > > I am sure there are others to consider that haven't occurred to me. I > confess that I am not a big fan of allowing either, but am probably > prejudiced by early familiarity with C89 and long years working to that > spec. > > Thoughts? > > Chuck > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
