On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 08:52, Metzger, Markus T
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> > It seems like common sense to me. "Almost always use auto" is a silly
> > guideline. I can't stand seeing nonsense like:
> >
> > auto main() -> int
> > { ... }
>
> I personally do not like auto for reasons like the above or
>
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 07:46, Liu Hao via Gcc wrote:
>
> 在 2020/8/13 上午2:40, David Blaikie 写道:
> >
> > Then use of `auto*` would make it easier for you to spot use of plain
> > pointers in your projects & scrutinize them further?
> >
>
> My point is that `auto*` conveys no more information than
Hello,
> It seems like common sense to me. "Almost always use auto" is a silly
> guideline. I can't stand seeing nonsense like:
>
> auto main() -> int
> { ... }
I personally do not like auto for reasons like the above or
auto foo = bar->foo ();
I find this very hard to read and I also
在 2020/8/13 上午2:40, David Blaikie 写道:
>
> Then use of `auto*` would make it easier for you to spot use of plain
> pointers in your projects & scrutinize them further?
>
My point is that `auto*` conveys no more information than `auto`. The absence
of `*` does not imply the object (pointer)
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 7:49 PM Liu Hao via Gdb wrote:
>
> 在 2020/8/11 下午9:55, Nathan Sidwell 写道:
> >
> > I agree, it's the way I use auto. I particularly like the
> >auto *foo = expr;
> > idiom, when you're getting a pointer, but the type of the pointee is clear.
> > It informs how you
在 2020/8/11 下午9:55, Nathan Sidwell 写道:
>
> I agree, it's the way I use auto. I particularly like the
> auto *foo = expr;
> idiom, when you're getting a pointer, but the type of the pointee is clear.
> It informs how you use 'foo'.
>
>
Personally I dislike this syntax. Pointers are
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 14:56, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> On 8/7/20 10:06 AM, Luis Machado via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > cc-ing the GCC mailing list, as we may want to use the same coding style
> > for GDB and GCC.
> >
> > Yesterday I brought this topic up on IRC. I notice we started using more
>
On 8/7/20 10:06 AM, Luis Machado via Gcc wrote:
Hi,
cc-ing the GCC mailing list, as we may want to use the same coding style
for GDB and GCC.
Yesterday I brought this topic up on IRC. I notice we started using more
and more the "auto" keyword. In some cases, this is actually useful and
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:06 AM Luis Machado via Gdb wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> cc-ing the GCC mailing list, as we may want to use the same coding style
> for GDB and GCC.
>
> Yesterday I brought this topic up on IRC. I notice we started using more
> and more the "auto" keyword. In some cases, this is
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 15:08, Luis Machado via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> cc-ing the GCC mailing list, as we may want to use the same coding style
> for GDB and GCC.
>
> Yesterday I brought this topic up on IRC. I notice we started using more
> and more the "auto" keyword. In some cases, this is
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 07:56:03AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > Pedro has pointed out LLVM's coding standards for "auto", which we may or
> > may not want to follow/adopt:
> > https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-auto-type-deduction-to-make-code-more-readable
Also see the
Hi Luis,
> cc-ing the GCC mailing list, as we may want to use the same coding style for
> GDB and GCC.
>
> Yesterday I brought this topic up on IRC. I notice we started using more and
> more the "auto" keyword. In some cases, this is actually useful and makes
> the code a bit more compact. GDB
Hi,
cc-ing the GCC mailing list, as we may want to use the same coding style
for GDB and GCC.
Yesterday I brought this topic up on IRC. I notice we started using more
and more the "auto" keyword. In some cases, this is actually useful and
makes the code a bit more compact. GDB has been
13 matches
Mail list logo
