Programmer Humor

Here is an otter

I’ve seen that in style guides ”because it should piss of everyone equally”.

I also sometimes wish that the syntax in if statements was inverted, where () was optional and {} was required.

Having assignments return a value is right up there as well.

You would think so, but int* a, b is actually eqivalent to int* a; int b, so the asterisk actually does go with the name. Writing int* a, *b is inconsistent, so int *a, *b is the way to go.

Then again, at least in C, the mantra is "declaration follows usage". Surely you don't write pointer dereferences as * ptr? Most likely not, you most likely write it as *ptr. The idea behind the int *ptr; syntax is basically that when you do *ptr, you get an int.

And with this idea, stuff like function pointers (int (*f)(void)), arrays of pointers (int *a[10]) versus pointers of arrays (int (*a)[10]) etc. start making sense. It's certainly not the best way to design the syntax, and I'm as much a fan of the Pascal-styled "type follows the identifier" syntax (e.g. let x: number;) as anyone, but the C way does have a rhyme and a reason for the way it is.

int* i, j

The C syntax is just messed up.

It's part of the type yet it's also a unique identifier. That's the whole thing with east or west const. const int * is a ~~immutable~~ mutable pointer that points to ~~mutable~~ immutable memory. int *const is a ~~mutable~~ immutable pointer that points to ~~immutable~~ memory. int const * is the same type as the first example, a ~~immutable~~ mutable pointer that points to ~~mutable~~ immutable memory.

Same stuff applies to references which makes it easier to think of the variable owning the * or & as if you want that pointer or reference to be const it has to go after.

Edit:I am a moron who managed to get it exactly backwards :|

I do this in my code because it looks better and makes more sense...until I decide to declare 2 vars on one line and then I use the very cursed int* a, *b

tbh I always think about it as 'p' is a pointer to int

therefore *p is an int

therefore I should call it int *p;

however, of course, you should use what your team prefers. Having good yet inconsistent style is worst than mid consistent style.

I don't code much C++, but then I'd lose alignment with: x = *p; and I feel that would bug me.

I'm looking at Google Style Guide for my next project and it says either is fine, just don't declare more than one per line.

And yet the default clang formatter gets it wrong.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76975645/how-can-i-give-different-colors-for-class-enum-and-interface-names-identifiers might get you closer?

It's such a short list of value types though. How can they have that much trouble? All of the various ints and floats, bool, char, structs, and enums. Everything else is reference.