I'd be interested to know: of those people who are in favour of removing the prefix, how many regularly have to deal with functions that are longer than two pages (a "page" is however much code you can see at a time in your coding environment)? I'd be happy to support removing the prefix if people also commit to splitting any giant functions they touch as part of the prefix removal.
Also FWIW in the current world I do find the prefix useful when debugging in gdb, because I know I can keep going up a frame as long as I'm tracing a variable with the prefix, whereas otherwise I would have to step backwards through each frame to see where the variable is coming from. I'll probably find some way to adapt if we remove the prefix though. kats On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Honza Bambas <hbam...@mozilla.com> wrote: > I'm strongly against removing the prefix. I got used to this and it has its > meaning all the time I inspect code (even my own) and doing reviews. > Recognizing a variable is an argument is very very useful. It's important > to have it and it's good we enforce it! > > -hb- > > > On 7/7/2015 5:12, Jeff Gilbert wrote: >> >> I propose that we stop recommending the universal use of an 'a' prefix for >> arguments to functions in C and C++. If the prefix helps with >> disambiguation, that's fine. However, use of this prefix should not be >> prescribed in general. >> >> `aFoo` does not provide any additional safety that I know of.[1] As a >> superfluous prefix, it adds visual noise, reducing immediate readability >> of >> all function declarations and subsequent usage of the variables within the >> function definition. >> >> Notable works or style guides [2] which do not recommend `aFoo`: [3] >> * Google >> * Linux Kernel >> * Bjarne Stroustrup >> * GCC >> * LLVM >> * Java Style (Java, non-C) >> * PEP 0008 (Python, non-C) >> * FreeBSD >> * Unreal Engine >> * Unity3D (largely C#) >> * Spidermonkey >> * Daala >> * RR >> * Rust >> * Folly (from Facebook) >> * C++ STL entrypoints >> * IDL for web specs on W3C and WhatWG >> * etc. >> >> Notable works or style guides which *do* recommend `aFoo`: >> * Mozilla (except for IDL, Java, and Python) >> * ? >> >> 3rd-party projects in our tree which do not use `aFoo`: >> * Cairo >> * Skia >> * ANGLE >> * HarfBuzz >> * ICU >> * Chromium IPC >> * everything under modules/ that isn't an nsFoo.c/cpp/h >> * etc.? >> >> 3rd-party projects in our tree which *do* recommend `aFoo`: >> * ? >> >> As far as I can tell, the entire industry disagrees with us (as well as a >> number of our own projects), which means we should have a good reason or >> two for making our choice. No such reason is detailed in the style guide. >> >> I propose we strike the `aFoo` recommendation from the Mozilla style >> guide. >> >> - >> >> [1]: Maybe it prevents accidental shadowing? No: Either this isn't allowed >> by spec, or at least MSVC 2013 errors when compiling this. >> >> [2]: I do not mean this as an endorsement of the listed works and guides, >> but rather as illustration on how unusual our choice is. >> >> [3]: I created an Etherpad into which people are welcome to gather other >> works, projects, or style guides that I missed: >> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/6FcHs9mJYQ >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-platform mailing list >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >> > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
