On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2017-10-11, bartc <b...@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 11/10/2017 15:36, Chris Angelico wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:14 AM, bartc <b...@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> Python, maybe. C syntax isn't as painful as C++ but I still have a lot of >>>> trouble with it. (Eg. the variable declaration 'char(*(*x[3])())[5]'. The >>>> name of the variable can be found lurking in that lot somewhere, but what's >>>> the type?) Not so convenient. >>> >>> People love showcasing stupid examples like that. But how often do you >>> REALLY make declarations that complex? That's not technically >>> strawmanning, since C syntax does indeed include that, but you're >>> cherry-picking the most extreme example. >> >> Sure. Statistically most declarations are going to be things like 'int' >> or 'char*. But more complicated ones (usually not as bad as the >> example), crop up often enough to be a nuisance. > > The easiest way to make stuff like that readable is to unroll them > into a sequence of typedefs. But, a lot of people never really > learn how to do that...
The most complexity you'll usually see is a function that accepts/returns a pointer, and those generally should be typedef'd. But even if not, they're still not anything like as bad as the mythical examples that get touted as "why C is bad" or "why variable declarations are bad" or "why type declarations are bad". ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
