Hi Branden,
On Tue Nov 19, 2024 at 12:37 AM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2024-11-18T21:43:24+0100, onf wrote:
> > [...]
> > Just a small nitpick, but you should probably do s/(warning) /\1/.
>
> Yes, that was a code style goof. Thanks! Fixed.
Hopefully the way I suggested... GNU's code style guides tend to be awful.
> [...]
> The `string` class is what it says, and does something
> Stroustrup encouraged everyone to do in the pre-ISO days of C++ when
> groff was first written. "Roll your own!" he enthused. "C++ makes
> memory management and automatically growing vectors easy! Just use the
> free store!" (He never calls dynamic storage a "heap", to this day.)
> "You can tune your custom string class to do only what you need! C++
> imposes no overhead on you! Zero-cost abstractions! You give up no
> speed! It's as fast as C!" Sales pitch, sales pitch, sales pitch.
>
> James Clark listened and followed recommended best practice.
>
> So anyway, both classes have `contents()` member functions.
>
> And why not? Isomorphism for the win, right? Operations that do the
> same thing should have the same names, right? '<<' means "left shift",
> right? Also "write stuff to a stream" or "generic output operator"...
> What? Also look at Java and its debacle with a multiplicity of
> different ways for getting the lengths of things.[1] But I digress.
I like the nickname sometimes given to C++, swiss army chainsaw.
Be careful or it will cost you an arm and a leg... :)
> [...] C-like OOP languages [...]
Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Although some OOP constructs are possible in C,
they don't come very naturally to the language. Perhaps you meant C++-like? [1]
~ onf
[1] Contrary to what many people think, there is no such thing as C/C++,
because C++ is not a complete superset of C.
