Hyrum K Wright wrote on Mon, May 02, 2011 at 15:00:45 -0500:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:55, <hwright_at_apache.org> wrote:
> >> Author: hwright
> >> Date: Mon May 2 14:55:34 2011
> >> New Revision: 1098610
> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1098610&view=rev
> >> Log:
> >> Use our "typical" function call syntax when using function pointers in the
> >> delta editor.
> >> One of the things that has always puzzled me is why (*func_ptr)(args) and
> >> func_ptr(args) are equivalent. While this remains an enigma, I much prefer
> >> the consistency offered by using the same syntax throughout our code base,
> >> and since this appears to be the odd file out, it get's the change.
> > I use the (*foo->bar)(...) form because the operator precedence and
> > binding is clearer. foo->bar(...) kind seems like bar(..) is getting
> > called, then something weird is going on with foo->. Yes, it is true
> > that foo->$result does not make sense, BUT: the brain recognizes that
> > *after* parsing bar(...) first. So when you see code like this, your
> > brain does a two-step. It just isn't smooth reading. Thus, the use of
> > (*foo->bar)(...). There is no pause in the brain's parsing of what is
> > actually happening there.
> > My preference would be to revert this change, to keep the previous
> > readability. We've generally allowed slight style variances as long as
> > a single file is consistent.
> Fine by me, though I've never noticed the mental do-si-do you describe
> above. At the end of the day it's just a bikeshed, so I'll give it a
> bit to allow others to weigh in.
There is a third option: (foo->bar)(...).
Received on 2011-05-02 22:28:36 CEST