On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On May 2, 2011 4:00 PM, "Hyrum K Wright" <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Looks like opinion is to leave your change!
Will do (but I'll also refrain from gratuitous changes like this in
the future :)
-Hyrum
Received on 2011-05-04 00:14:44 CEST