Re: Declaration design preference: type or name first

Tzy-Jye Daniel Lin <dtlin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:27:23 +0100, Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
>
>> What I mostly object to is putting part of the type before the name and
>> other parts after the name, such as "int x[10]".
>> [...] It is even worse if we in
>> C-style type syntax have to declare a function that returns a function.

>> This would be something like
>> 
>> int f(int x[10]) g(int x)
>> 
>> I'm not sure this is valid C syntax, and it certainly isn't easy to
>> read.  Isn't it better to write something like
>> 
>> g(x : int) : int[10]->int
>
> C doesn't allow a function to be returned, so returning a pointer to a
> function instead, the correct declaration here is
>
> int (*g(int x))(int x[10]);

O.K.  Not that this makes it any more readable.

> More typically, you'd use a typedef to avoid blowing up people's brains.
>
> typedef int F(int x[10]);
> F *g(int x);
>
> Cforall (http://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~cforall/
seems to be down right now)
> chooses to allow all types in front of names, so this might be written
>
> int (* ([10] int)) g(int x);

I still think

g(x : int) : int[10]->int

or even

g : int -> int[10] -> int

are more readable, but that might just be me :-)

	Torben