wieser.eric+numpy at gmail.com
Sat Sep 8 02:01:49 EDT 2018
Thanks for the first step on this!
Should we allow // style comments
I don’t think it matters too much. I think it might be a little messy to
have a mix of the two styles where // means “post py3” and /* */ means
pre-py3 - but at the same time, I do slightly prefer the C++-style. For C
contributors coming from python, I’d expect that it feels more natural to
only have to put a comment marker at the start of the line. We could
convert the /**/-style to //-style with a tool, but it’s probably not worth
the churn or time.
Should we allow variable declarations after code
I’d be very strongly in favor of this - it makes it much easier to extract
helper functions if variables are declared as late as they can be - plus it
make it easier to reason about early returns not needing goto fail.
Related to this feature, I think allowing for(int i = 0; i < N; i++) is a
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 18:56 Charles R Harris charlesr.harris at gmail.com
> I've a PR up converting travis testing to use C99
> <https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11905>. I suspect we may not want to
> merge it for a while, but it does raise a couple of style questions that we
> should probably settle up front. Namely:
> - Should we allow // style comments
> - Should we allow variable declarations after code
> I am sure there are others to consider that haven't occurred to me. I
> confess that I am not a big fan of allowing either, but am probably
> prejudiced by early familiarity with C89 and long years working to that
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion