Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:15:25 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: paul@originative.co.uk Subject: Re: c99/c++ localised variable definition Message-ID: <20050129141525.GB71245@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20050128.114919.71097322.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20050128173327.GI61409@myrddin.originative.co.uk> <20050128.114919.71097322.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:49:19AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > So, are we going to start allowing this feature to be used in FreeBSD > > since it would require a pretty major change to style(9). > > People differ as to the efficacy of such usage. Either they love it > and can't understand why people wouldn't want to see definitions close > to where they are used. Or they hate it and can't understand why > you'd want to go searching for a definition when the one, true, > god-given place is at the top of the function. Often times, no > further discourse is possible because both sides know they are right, > and the other side is a bunch of butt picking monekys that clearly > should get out of the stone age... ...And which is even worse, the source code itself becomes a battleground for the two uncompromising sides. We have bloodstained src/ spots in plenty. Perhaps we need a law to stop the bloodshed, like it was in the Wild West? :-) It's becoming hard to find a scoped variable definition in some source files. And currently I cannot see a paragraph in style(9) on where local vars should be defined. Am I getting blind? -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050129141525.GB71245>