3 ms·
Hopefully I never need to review code written with these definitions. It's an awful idea to do this. The first section shows why some languages have no 'typed
by beeforpork 3y ago
Hopefully I never need to review code written with these definitions. It's an awful idea to do this.
The first section shows why some languages have no 'typedef': introducing another layer of aliases is just not a good idea. It's confusing, it changes the appearance to basically a new language. Just use the standard names, instead of redefining your language, like everyone else. This style is almost as bad as '#define begin {'.
Many of the other defs are obfuscations or language changes -- this coerces C to something else. I'd not like to read code written with this, as it heavily violates the principle of least astonishment (POLA).
(As a side note, I don't understand the #define for sizeof. The operator sizeof returns size_t -- it's size_t's definition, so what is this for?)
- Pathogen-David 3y ago> As a side note, I don't understand the #define for sizeof. Their `size` type is signed. It's `ptrdiff_t`, not `size_t`.
- beeforpork 3y agoAh, thanks! So code will look normal, but be subtly different. This is even worse than I thought!