To close the loop on this thread, although there was mild support
for both of these conventions there were also objections to both,
including a suggestion for an alternative to the "/*foo_p=*/" style
that would be preferred by most people who responded.
With that I don't have the sense that there is consensus to adopt
either style as conventions for GCC code.
Jason and Jeff (and other reviewers), what does this mean for those
of us submitting patches? Do we discontinue using the "/*foo_p=*/"
style in the C++ front end or should we train ourselves to remember
to use it there but nowhere else?
Thanks
Martin
On 10/03/2016 05:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
In a recent review Jason and I discussed the style convention
commonly followed in the C++ front end to annotate arguments
in calls to functions taking bool parameters with a comment
along the lines of
foo (1, 2, /*bar_p=*/true);
I pointed out to Jason that in another code review, Jeff asked
to remove the same comment from the middle-end [1]. In the
interest of consistency Jason and I thought I should bring this
up for discussion so we can all be clear on whether or not this
is something worth standardizing and documenting.
As a separate question, in the same discussion I mention to Jason
a convention that I myself have found useful where the value of
a default argument is indicated in a comment in a function
definition that is declared elsewhere to take one, e.g., like so:
// In some header:
void foo (int, int, bool = -1);
// In some .c file:
void foo (int x, int y, bool bar_p /* = false */)
{
...
}
Jason thought this would be a good convention. Is there any
interest in/support for adopting it?
Thanks
Martin
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg00354.html
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01469.html
