Robert Gamble posted:
The vast majority of programmers prefer the first form and with good
reason, when you start mixing things up in unusual and unintuitive ways
it makes it difficult to read and more likely that someone will make a
mistake while doing so (such as the one you made above).
The mistake I made was a result of writing quickly and sloppily.
Similarly, from time to time, you'll see me write "their" instead of
"they're", or "its" instead of "it's", or "mens" instead of "men's", even
though I know full well how they should be used.
Additionally, the placement of qualifiers in more complicated
declarations (such as pointer variables) often *is* significant and
someone who just sprinkes them around willy-nilly without knowing any
better is likely to suffer the unintended consequences of doing so.
I have discussed this elsethread. I put them in a particular order. I like
to place emphasis on the type by putting it at the start of a line,
perhaps:
static inline
int const
(*const *Func(void))[12]
{
}
Or, on one line:
int const static inline (*const *Func(void))[12] { }
Some people complain that this mixes the return type with keywords such as
"static" and "inline", but I consider the asterisk to be part of the name
of the function. This is reflected by:
int *p1, *p2;
Recently, I've taken a preference to the multi-line form which I show above
(which places the "static" and "inline" on the preceeding line).
That's not even worth a response.
Labeling it as "perverse" because it clashes with other people's styles
borders on fascist ideals not unlike one expressing and asserting one's
homphobia.
Kieth Thompson likes to write "unsigned char"... great! Would you not
consider it fascist that he labels any other perfectly conforming way of
doing it as "perverse"?
You don't take criticism very well do you?
Not when people are trying to persuade me that there's an inherent flaw in
writing "char unsigned". Both from reading the Standard, and from my own
programming experience, I have not been convinced that "char unsigned" is
bad style.
It is a shame that someone who was starting to build up a good amount of
respect for themselves in this group would be willing to so quickly
throw it away by resorting to imature, child-like, personal attacks on
well-respected regulars for no good reason.
Firstly, I made no personal attack.
Secondly, respect is fleeting on Usenet. I'm usually accepted quite
graciously at the beginning on newsgroups such as this one, but then when I
don't immediately submit to fascism such as "Don't write it that way, it
confuses us", or "Use signed integer types, not unsigned", the transparency
of any perceived respect becomes apparent.
Two points to make:
(1) I like to write "char unsigned".
(2) I prefer to use unsigned integer types where possible.
I am respected until I choose to defend my way of doing things, and then
blatantly disrespected when I don't immediately succumb to the pressure. It
doesn't take much thought to realise that the concept of respect is a bit
wish-washy here.
I don't seek respect from this group. I seek interesting discussion. I seek
to further my own skill in C. It seems that usage of "char unsigned" breeds
contempt around here. That's unfortunate. Perhaps if I write it enough,
people will see that, as far as the International Standard is concerned,
it's a perfectly conforming, variant word ordering of "unsigned char".
You have been here long enough to know that such a response wouldn't
garner you any support or sympathy.
It seems to be the only way to get through to some people. Without going
off-topic, I'll give a quick summary of a little discussion which took
place over on comp.lang.c++: A person posted seeking advice on using
arrays. I cordially posted advice on using arrays. Regulars were quick to
reply that "arrays are dangerous", and that the original poster should use
the Standard Library's "vector" facility. I responded that arrays are not
dangerous, unless they're used by not-so-apt programmers. Sometimes I have
to use less-euphemistic terms to get the point across.
As an aside, I wasn't aware that my use of "retardation" would cause such a
flurry. If the group would rather that I not use it in such a context, I'll
gladly oblige.
Hopefully this can be chalked up to you having a bad day but I hope you
realize that your response was asinine and uncalled for.
I don't believe so. Perhaps I should start a new thread expressing my point
of view.
I suggest you think twice about posting such nonsense here again if you
want to continue being taken seriously.
It appears I have lost that priviledge since I failed to succumb to the
group's pressure to write "unsigned char". Who would have thought that such
a simple thing would devalue my worth as a human being?
