On 09/25/2013 11:33 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
I was looking at the vec class to figure out the best way to do some
things and realized we have a "last" member function. Using
foo.last() is clearer than foo[foo.length() - 1]
On a related note, our current standards require a space between a
function name and the open paren for its argument list. However, it
leads to fugly code in some cases. Assume foo is an vec instance and
we want to look at something in the last vector element. Our current
standards would imply something like this:
foo.last ()->bar
Which is how the current patch formats that code. However, I
typically see this more often in C++ codebases as
foo.last()->bar
But then, what if we just want the last element without peeking deeper
inside it?
foo.last ()?
or
foo.last()?
Do we want to make any changes in our style guidelines to handle this
better?
I noticed that with the wrapper conversion, often you will get a
sequence of 3 or more method calls, and its quite unbearable to have the
spaces.
simple things like
int unsignedsrcp = ptrvar.type().type().type_unsigned();
vs
int unsignedsrcp = ptrvar.type ().type ().type_unsigned ();
I was going to bring it up at some point too. My preference is strongly
to simply eliminate the space on methods...
Andrew
