11–20 of 466 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with it?
Well, from a team perspective, it's extremely opinionated and hostile to newcomers and messes with core language features at the expense of readability. If it's your personal codebase then do whatever, obviously.
I have not seen a single codebase that widely uses uint8_t and does not typedef it to u8. It is the exact opposite of "extremely opinionated".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with it?
Well, from a team perspective, it's extremely opinionated and hostile to newcomers and messes with core language features at the expense of readability. If it's your personal codebase then do whatever, obviously.
This seems like a bad idea, because the whole point of an assert is that something shouldn't happen, but might due to a (future?) bug.
> To beginners it might seem like “wasting memory” by using a 32-bit boolean Maybe I'm a beginner then. He lists a few cases where it's not worse than sticking to 8-bit bools, but no cases where it's actually an improvement. It still wastes memory sometimes, e.g. if you have adjacent booleans in a struct, or boolean variables in a function that spill out of registers onto the stack. Sure it's only a few bytes here an…
> #define sizeof(x) (size)sizeof(x) Technically, it's illegal to #define over a language keyword.
> To beginners it might seem like “wasting memory” by using a 32-bit boolean Maybe I'm a beginner then. He lists a few cases where it's not worse than sticking to 8-bit bools, but no cases where it's actually an improvement. It still wastes memory sometimes, e.g. if you have adjacent booleans in a struct, or boolean variables in a function that spill out of registers onto the stack. Sure it's only a few bytes here an…
> To beginners it might seem like “wasting memory” by using a 32-bit boolean Maybe I'm a beginner then. He lists a few cases where it's not worse than sticking to 8-bit bools, but no cases where it's actually an improvement. It still wastes memory sometimes, e.g. if you have adjacent booleans in a struct, or boolean variables in a function that spill out of registers onto the stack. Sure it's only a few bytes here an…
> #define sizeof(x) (size)sizeof(x) Technically, it's illegal to #define over a language keyword.
really? then how do you #define things like types like `int` and `char`?
> #define int long
Because you're replacing the int keyword with something else.
The standard says:
> 17.6.4.3.1 [macro.names] paragraph 2: A translation unit shall not #define or #undef names lexically identical to keywords, to the identifiers listed in Table 3, or to the attribute-tokens described in 7.6.