4 ms·
This actually bothered me to no end at google. At the API level, it's great, I can learn a lot about what your function is going to do just by looking at the s
by leif 16y ago
This actually bothered me to no end at google. At the API level, it's great, I can learn a lot about what your function is going to do just by looking at the signature, but when reading code that uses an API I don't know, it's hell. For me, the extra help you get by looking at a function signature really isn't that great, when I should have the same information available in the documentation that had damn well better accompany the function signature in your header.
- jamesaguilar 16y agoHeader documentation and pointer-as-output conventions are both typically available in the Google libraries I've used. I really don't understand what you are complaining about. Earlier you said you didn't like references being modified by functions to which they are parameters. Now you are complaining about the use of pointers as parameters? In a language like C++, it's pretty difficult to do neither.
- leif 16y agoNo, I'm not opposed to references being modified by functions, I'm opposed to the "ampersand" syntax of C++. I am fully in support of just passing a pointer and being straightforward about it.