From: already5chosen@yahoo.com
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:06:10 +0200
David Brown wrote:
> On 10/10/2025 08:27, BGB wrote:
> > On 10/9/2025 10:59 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> bart writes:
>
> >>
> >>>> One merit is if code can be copy-pasted, but if one has to change
> >>>> all instances of:
> >>>> char *s0, *s1;
> >>>> To:
> >>>> char* s0, s1;
> >>>> Well, this is likely to get old, unless it still uses, or allows
> >>>> C style declaration syntax in this case.
> >>>
> >>> That one's been fixed (50 years late): you instead write:
> >>>
> >>> typeof(char*) s0, s1;
> >>>
> >>> But you will need an extension if it's not part of C23.
> >>
> >> Yes, that will work in C23, but it would never occur to me to
> >> write that. I'd just write `char *s0, *s1;` or, far more likely,
> >> define s0 and s1 on separate lines. Using typeof that way triggers
> >> my WTF filter.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it can be contrast with C# style syntax (with "unsafe")
> > where one would write:
> > char* s0, s1;
>
> Does C# treat s1 as "char*" in this case? That sounds like an
> extraordinarily bad design decision - having a syntax that is very
> like the dominant C syntax yet subtly different.
>
Generally, I disagree with your rule. Not that it makes no sense at
all, but sometimes a violation has more sense. For example, I strongly
prefer for otherwise C-like languages to parse 011 literal as decimal
11 rather than 9.
In this particular case it's more subtle.
What makes it a non-issue in practice is the fact that pointers is C# is
very rarely used expert-level feature, especially so after 7 or 8
years ago the language got slices (Span).
A person that decides to use C# pointers has to understand at least
half a dozen of more arcane things than this one.
Also it's very unlikely in case somebody made such mistake that his
code will pass compilation. After all, we're talking about C# here, not
something like Python.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
