"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:HMudnfqSToSaMb_VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cr88192 said:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> now, I usually code in notepad,
>
> Oh dear. :-)
>
all in all it is a good and simple editor...
>> which has inflexible 8-space tabs, so
>> usually I use this.
>> if the tab space is adjustable, usually I like 4 space tabs.
>
> Tab/space wars are so 1990s, though, aren't they?
>
yeah...
anymore, it is mostly forgotten, but I still usually use 4 or 8...
>> 2 or 3 spaces is IMO too little.
>
> And IMO 3 is too many. Vive la difference!
>
yeah, it is a matter of taste I guess. 2 or 3 spaces IMO is painful to
read
or skim...
>> 1 space is just horrid (may as well not indent at all...).
>
> Agreed.
>
>> usually, I put opening and closing braces on their own lines, and
closing
>> braces are indended the same as the opening braces.
>
> Agreed again.
>
> You forgot <stdio.h>
>
yeah, I inferred this, since my point was more about demonstrating style
than actually working code.
>> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> {
>> FILE *fd;
>> if(argv<2)
>
> You meant argc.
>
yes, typing does not always work perfectly...
>> {
>> printf("usage: %s <filename>\n", argv[0]);
>
> If argc is 0, the behaviour is undefined. If it is >= 1, argv[0] must
> represent the program name in some way, but need not be a string
> representing the invocation name for the program. It could even be a
pid!
>
this is a common practice though, and also I don't personally know of any
OS
where argc is not at least 1...
>> return(-1);
>
> This has no ****table meaning (and the parentheses are redundantly
> superfluous).
>
return(-1);
is the same as:
return -1;
only, the parens are a matter of style and tradition...
>> }
>>
>> fd=fopen(argv[1], "rb");
>> ...
>> return(0);
>
> Again, the parentheses are superfluously redundant.
>
>> }
>>
>> note that EXIT_SUCCESS and EXIT_FAILURE are considered "more correct"
for
>> main return values,
>
> 0 is fine - it means success.
>
yeah.
>> but 0 and -1 are more common/traditional.
>
> A -1 return value has no de jure meaning in C (which is, at least, in
> keeping with the better kinds of tradition - if we knew why we did them,
> they wouldn't be traditions!).
>
> To indicate failure ****tably, use EXIT_FAILURE.
>
it is more correct, but -1 is a very common value for indicating error as
well.
I think usually any value other than 0 counts as an error.
>> IMO, both forms:
>> if(...)
>> {
>>
>> and:
>> if(...) {
>>
>> are fairly common and acceptable, but most people put the brace on its
>> own line for functions, and rarely for structs or unions.
>
> The word "most" is arguable. K&R's style is perniciously persistent even
> now. And a significant number of Allman adherents /do/ put a struct
brace
> on its own line.
>
I comment based on what I have most often seen, but these conventions are
by
no means universal.
>> it is common for commas to be followed by a space ("f(x, y);" but not
>> "f(x,y);").
>
> True, and wise.
>
>> some people precede/follow parens and/or operators with spaces.
>
> True, and a matter of taste, I think. My own taste is for parentheses
not
> to "command" any whitespace, but for binary operators to be separated
from
> their operands by a space.
>
yeah, my case I don't usually use a space either (since to me the paren is
'strong', and putting a space there makes it seem 'weak'...).
my case, whether or not I use spaces around operators is a matter of
situation, where usually they are used for breaking up expressions into
recognizable parts, and sometimes for aligning groups of regularized
expressions.
sometimes terms for polynomial expressions can be broken up like this as
well.
4*a*c - 2*b
>> if certain single-letter variable names are used (especially,
>> i,j,k,s,t,...) it is almost obligatory that they be certain types
(i,j,k
>> are int, s,t are 'char *', ...).
>
> No, not really. Common, yes. Obligatory? Hardly.
>
sufficiently common patterns are almost obligatory.
if one is going to use different types, they are better off avoiding these
names, for sake of reducing possible confusion.
>>
>> return is often/usually written as if it were a function call (common
in
>> C, rare in C++).
>
> return /isn't/ a function call, and it seems to me from perusing this
> group
> and from what I've seen of good C code (in well-regarded literature, in
> workplaces, and on the Web) that few if any experienced C programmers
> treat it like one.
>
well, as noted, it is a lot more common in C IME, but it is almost never
done in C++.
however, I have personally seen a lot more code with the parens than
without
the parens...
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www.
+rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
|
