On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 11:02 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 6:07 AM Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 12:02 AM Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+nu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> Thinking about this some more, a good argument for going to full C99 is >> that outside code written in that style can be brought in without a lot of >> work. >> > > Agreed. And we already have the pocketfft PR to prove that. > Hmm, maybe C_STYLE_GUIDE.rst.txt should be an NEP? Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
