Re: C++ Primer ex 4.30
On Jul 24, 11:53 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@comAcast.net> wrote:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Victor Bazarov:
Heya Victor, I think James' follow up was quite reasonable; you was
the one using loaded words like "stupid". And I agree with James. Not
only is the source code more readable with separate declarations,
<shrug>
IMNSHO muliplying 'std::string' like it does in the code
fragment above is NOT more readable, whatever you and James
may have to say about it; everybody's standards of readability
are different.
Readability can be tested, and more or less objectively
measured. (Not that anyone is actually doing it, of course.)
There has to be a significant number of people agreeing with some
point of view to make that point of view reasonable.
Number of people agreeing is very orthogonal with reasonability.
As to loadedness of any words you choose to pick on, I've
dealt with enough coding standards to have my opinion on them
and to be able to call some of them stupid. I am not going to
continue this.
it's also a convention that helps avoid some simple errors, it better
supports editing, and it better supports debugging because you can
run up to a given declaration, so it's not religious, just what's
practical in C++.
It's a *style* issue. Of course it *is* religious.
It stops being a style issue when someone has to maintain the
code. For example, by changing the type of one of the
variables, without changing the others.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34