On 9/24/20 12:46 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/24/20 1:53 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Finally, unless both a type and function with the same name exist
in the same scope there is no reason to mention the class-id when
referencing a class name. I.e., this
value_range_equiv *allocate_value_range_equiv ();
void free_value_range_equiv (value_range_equiv *);
is the same as this:
class value_range_equiv *allocate_value_range_equiv ();
void free_value_range_equiv (class value_range_equiv *);
but the former is shorter and clearer (and in line with existing
practice).
value_range_equiv may not be defined in the scope of range-query.h, so
that is why the class specifier is there.
I see. It's probably a reflection of my C++ background that this
style catches my eye. In C++ I think it's more common to introduce
a forward declaration of a class before using it.
Just as a side note, the first declaration of a type introduces it
into the enclosing namespace so that from that point forward it can
be used without the class-id. E.g., this is valid:
struct A
{
// Need class here...
class B *f ();
// ...but not here...
void g (B *);
};
// ...or even here:
B* A::f () { return 0; }
Either way, the code is correct as is and I don't object to it,
just noting that (at least some of) the class-ids are redundant.
Martin
