On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 2, 2011 4:00 PM, "Hyrum K Wright" <hy...@hyrumwright.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:55, <hwri...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Author: hwright >> >> Date: Mon May 2 14:55:34 2011 >> >> New Revision: 1098610 >> >> >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1098610&view=rev >> >> Log: >> >> Use our "typical" function call syntax when using function pointers in >> >> the >> >> delta editor. >> >> >> >> One of the things that has always puzzled me is why (*func_ptr)(args) >> >> and >> >> func_ptr(args) are equivalent. While this remains an enigma, I much >> >> prefer >> >> the consistency offered by using the same syntax throughout our code >> >> base, >> >> and since this appears to be the odd file out, it get's the change. >> > >> > I use the (*foo->bar)(...) form because the operator precedence and >> > binding is clearer. foo->bar(...) kind seems like bar(..) is getting >> > called, then something weird is going on with foo->. Yes, it is true >> > that foo->$result does not make sense, BUT: the brain recognizes that >> > *after* parsing bar(...) first. So when you see code like this, your >> > brain does a two-step. It just isn't smooth reading. Thus, the use of >> > (*foo->bar)(...). There is no pause in the brain's parsing of what is >> > actually happening there. >> > >> > My preference would be to revert this change, to keep the previous >> > readability. We've generally allowed slight style variances as long as >> > a single file is consistent. >> >> Fine by me, though I've never noticed the mental do-si-do you describe >> above. At the end of the day it's just a bikeshed, so I'll give it a >> bit to allow others to weigh in. > > Looks like opinion is to leave your change!
Will do (but I'll also refrain from gratuitous changes like this in the future :) -Hyrum
