Hey sin, thanks for your feedback!
>> -static char *
>> -eat(char *s, int (*p)(int), int r) {
>> +static char*
>> +eat(char *s, int (*p)(int), const int r) {
>> while(*s != '\0' && p(*s) == r)
>> s++;
>> return s;
>> }
>
> Please do not use char* instead use char
>> Declaring immutable arguments makes reading the code easier.
>
> Depends of the eyes, for me, const only adds noise to the code and
> it should be avoid except in some situations. In the case of main
> is directly an error because the standard says explicityly that main
> must be defined as:
>
> +eat(char *s, int (*p)(int), const int r) {
`const int r' also does not make much sense.
This is not idiomatic code.
> +skip(char *s, const char c) {
Similarly here for `c'. I'd expect this to be simply
an int to be honest.
Thanks,
sin
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:15:23PM +0300, sin wrote:
> > +eat(char *s, int (*p)(int), const int r) {
>
> `const int r' also does not make much sense.
> This is not idiomatic code.
I agree with you. Since r is a local variable doesn't matter if
the function modifies it (and even is better modify i
On 22 August 2013 10:58, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
>
> Since r is a local variable doesn't matter if
> the function modifies it (and even is better modify it instead of
> using other local variable for it). I use const only when I want
> show that the function is going to accept constant
A similarly useful approach may be to provide an array of slots where
one could add his windows in order of priority. Then one could focus
them by number or in the order of adding... Something like in those
rts games where you could group units into groups 1-9.
I remember there was a patch that wen
