[Numpy-discussion] C99

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris at gmail.com
Sat Sep 8 15:23:30 EDT 2018


On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 11:02 AM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 6:07 AM Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 12:02 AM Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+numpy at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 clear win.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>
>> Thinking about this some more, a good argument for going to full C99 is
>> that outside code written in that style can be brought in without a lot of
>> work.
>>
>
> Agreed. And we already have the pocketfft PR to prove that.
>

Hmm, maybe  C_STYLE_GUIDE.rst.txt should be an NEP?

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180908/5f087433/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list