> @Example
> .ll 1
> .hy 48
> @endExample
>
> It seems the word "splitting" should be on a third input line (after
> the .hy request).
Fixed, thanks.
Werner
I hate to distract from the robust discussion on C coding style with a
comment about groff, but I noticed what appears to be a missing line
from the changes commit d592d320cd43cf4ecee67a7aa80b52691671465d made
to doc/groff.texi. Part of the added text reads:
@Example
.ll 1
.hy 48
@endExample
ret
I wrote:
> > >> const char *foo;
> > >> char const *foo;
>
> No, those two have identical meaning.
Not according to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const_(computer_programming)
:
Hi Ralph,
Ralph Corderoy wrote on Sun, May 06, 2018 at 01:19:09PM +0100:
> I think those struggling with Andersons' `right left' rule, or
> equivalent, will probably find that const being allowed to shift
> position but not meaning is significant
Nobody is suggesting that it should be allowed to
Hi Carsten,
> C++ has the same rules as C regarding this.
Thanks for clarifying. Sorry you had to do it twice; Mike must have
forwarded my off-list email from earlier to the list so there was some
duplication.
> See e.g. Bjarne Stroustrup's "The C++ Programming Language" Forth
> Edition ยง7.5 p
> Ralph Corderoy hat am 6. Mai 2018 um 00:03
> geschrieben:
> Just to make certain we're arguing about the same thing, I'm talking C
> here, not C++. I've no idea whether C++ is the same or different in
> this respect, and don't wish to learn. :-)
As said the same applies for C++. "const int
Hi Mike,
You dropped the list. That's fine if it were deliberate; just
checking.
> > > >> const char *foo;
> > > >> char const *foo;
> >
> > No, those two have identical meaning.
...
> These examples are found there.
> (( reformatted for emphasis ))
>
> void Foo( int *
On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 05:27:39PM +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > >> const char *foo;
> > >> char const *foo;
>
> No, those two have identical meaning.
Not according to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Const_(computer_programming)
This is a rather through discussion of the topic.
Wel
> Ralph Corderoy hat am 6. Mai 2018 um 14:33
> geschrieben:
> I don't know if C++ has different semantics that mean choice of position
> is less flexible; I've just been talking about C.
C++ has the same rules as C regarding this. See e.g. Bjarne Stroustrup's "The
C++ Programming Language" Fo
Hi Ingo,
> > Perhaps you're in a bit of a silo? :-)
>
> Perhaps. :-)
Branden's cited one source he's seen. I had a Google last night, but
was too tired to post the results.
A _Dr Dobbs_ blog article in 2010 recommends always writing `int const'.
http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/the-mutable-comprehe
Hi Ingo,
> What you described as a pointer to a 2x3 array of immutable pointers
> to strings might be
> char **const (*gbrs_evil)[2][3]
> But as i said, it is evil, so maybe i'm wrong, too.
It's really not that evil.
char **const (*gbrs_evil)[2][3]
gbrs_evil is a
Hi Branden,
> I had first _heard_ of it some years ago, but the most significant bit
> of prominent evangelism for it I'm aware of is from Ben Klemens's
> _21st Century C_:
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14514281-21st-century-c
Interesting, thanks. The second edition gets a better star ra
Hi Branden,
> Getting back on topic...
Square!
> My debugging instincts tell me to always report the value of an
> argument being rejected. For one thing, the user could have passed
> .hy a register value (possibly with arithmetic manipulation), and if
> we screw up the validity checks it's eas
13 matches
Mail list logo
