|
It's nice when you have that kind of infrastructure. Currently I work for myself from home, so I am not similarly equipped. Nor do I work routinely but rather in spurts, so it doesn't really pay for me to have a subscription to anything major since I'll take a month sabbatical here and there. Necessity is the mother of invention, and I find keeping everything simple works well enough for me. 
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I work from home to, as an independent contractor. And there is no cost to using Azure DevOps for small teams. I have several large repos there that I maintain. And it does make it easier when I can share the stories I am working on with my clients...
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, i thought it was pay to play for professional stuff. thanks! 
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
It is certainly worth looking at it. I believe you can have up to 5 people who can access your AzDo site. And having a VS license doesn't count to that limit. Mind you, I haven't looked if any of this has changed. And there are services on it they they do charge for. But for the most part I have no problems with just using the free services
|
|
|
|
|
On my hobby project, I've taken to leaving notes when a thought occurs to me that I don't want to pursue right away, in the form of #error TODO maybe look into ... (c++)
Later I'm forced to at least look at the note. Otherwise they'd be lost forever.
|
|
|
|
|
Type *p;
or
Type* p;
or even
Type * p;
Me personally, I do whatever is the current company naming conventions.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that was low!(-level language)
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
Is that to pop the popcorn?
|
|
|
|
|
Have always used this style.
Type* p;
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - An updated version available!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Me too. Although since I no longer develop in C++, I use:
MyType p;
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hate the question. The reason being is that the pointer is part of the type intrinsically, and I want to use it that way but C isn't always consistent about it, so it gets weird no matter what you do.
Pointer syntax is funky. It just is. There's no amount of style guidelines that will defunk pointers. Ergo, I do whatever the code around me does. Usually I put it with the type but I know I'm hated for that. 
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, see my comment below, I think similar mis feelings.
Either way, I'm not worrying about such details. It is what it is and I close both eyes and go through it
|
|
|
|
|
Type *p;
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
I use C and try to be consistent
Type *p;
example
typedef struct
{
char form[LINE_SIZE]; // command form */
int narg; // number of arguments */
char error; // error code */
} LANG;
LANG *LP;
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but as mentioned in my post below... a thing I don't do but is very common:
const char
*a= "a",
*b= "b";
tells us, in this case we are something wrong... 
|
|
|
|
|
This doesn't bother me, because I never do this kind of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Type* p;
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
type *p;
Because
type* p, q
doesn't do what it looks like it does. Of course, that kicks off the argument about multiple variables per type declaration.
Keep Calm and Carry On
|
|
|
|
|
k5054 wrote: Of course, that kicks off the argument about multiple variables per type declaration.
Not an argument: don't do that.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer
Type* p;
And this only because my compiler gives a wrning when I don't use a parameter in a method:
void Method(char x, char* y)
To get rid of the warning I need to do e.g.this
void Method(char x, char* /*y*/)
On the other hand if I would do something like this (what I'm not doing ...)
const char *a= "a", *b= "b";
Then I get angry because the language itself is not what I would name 'consistent'
|
|
|
|
|
type* (pointer is part of type)
Now moving on: do you do "west const" or "east const"?
Standard C++[^]
(surely a lot of people - me included - don't want to do productive work today)
Mircea
modified 12-Dec-22 13:58pm.
|
|
|
|
|
If pointer is part of the type, make it! Make a typedef and use that when declaring variables.
type* x, y; - is y of a pointer type? You know that it isn't. Lots of problems have been caused by making it appear as if x and y have the same type. (Thankfully, the compiler will catch most such wrongful assumptions.) If you change it to
type y, *x; - is now the type definition for variable x split into two parts, separated by a variable declaration?
If you make a typedef, you have a clear, all-in-one-place type definition, not cluttered up by variables. And you would avoid the risk of someone assuming, in the first example, that x and y are of the same type.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
