On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:13:27AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Richard Sandiford > <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> writes: > >> What's the benefit of reading and writing such noisy lines? : > >> > >> *out_mode = mode_; > >> mode_ = GET_MODE_WIDER_MODE (mode_); > >> count_++; > >> > >> The uglification merely makes code harder to write and read, it should be > >> used in cases where you _don't_ want developers to write such names. > > > > Heh. Since it's my code being used as the example here: I also find it > > very ugly FWIW. I only added the underscores because that's what the > > conventions said. > > > > But we're never going to get consensus on this kind of thing. E.g. I > > know some people really hate the GNU formatting style (although I very > > much like it). So I just held my nose while writing the patch. > > Btw, I've come around multiple coding-styles in the past and I definitely > would prefer m_mode / m_count to mark members vs. mode_ and count_. > (and s_XXX for static members IIRC).
what about a_foo for arguments? I'd prefer m_/s_foo for members / static things too fwiw. Trev > > Richard. > > > Thanks, > > Richard
