[Numpy-discussion] C99

[Ralf Gommers]

On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 12:24 PM Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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?
>

+1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180908/c7fca276/attachment.html>