5 ms·

char ((x[3])())[5] I'm more of the mindset that writing something like this is probably a code smell to begin with. Is there any reason I'm not thinking of r

char (*(*x[3])())[5] I'm more of the mindset that writing something like this is probably a code smell to begin with. Is there any reason I'm not thinking of right now, that this couldn't be typedef'd and refactored into something far more readable? C gets a lot of blame for pointer gibberish like this but quite honestly you can write gibberish in any language. I don't see any fundamental or technical reason you couldn't write clean, readable C.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
CuriousCosmic 2y ago
the function signature certainly should be type def-ed. i.e. typedef char (*fn())[5]; and then you have the original as fn x [3];
- fsckboy 2y ago
  I don't keep up with the latest C shenanigans, cuz I like C the way it was, but have they change something where "pointer to an array[5]" is a meaningful distinction to draw? I mean, "a pointer to an array of X" is simply "a pointer to X" and using hungarian notation, you can encode the knowledge "this pointer can be incremented" into its name. and typedef'ing *function declarations? who has families of functions with the same type signatures that they want to point to?
  - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
    > but have they change something where "pointer to an array[5]" is a meaningful distinction to draw This has been a meaningful distinction since at least C99. > "a pointer to an array of X" is simply "a pointer to X" They aren't actually the same. The former can be decayed into the latter but they aren't actually equivalent and you'll get type mismatches if you try to treat them as the same thing. > who has families of functions with the same type signatures that they want to point to An example is callbacks or handlers for responding to interrupt requests. A lot of hardware interface code relies on typedef-ed function decls because very often you are passing user side functions through your interface so that you can stash those function pointers somewhere and invoke them when some event occurs.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - kelnos 2y ago
    > "a pointer to an array of X" is simply "a pointer to X" I don't believe these two are the same. An "array of X" indeed decays to a "pointer to X". But a "pointer to an array of X" is something else. E.g. int foo[3]; // array of int int *foo; // pointer to int int *foo[3]; // pointer to array of int Perhaps the first two are what you mean, though, and this is just a terminology issue.
    - fsckboy 2y ago
      int *foo[3]; // pointer to array of int that's an array of 3 pointers to ints. if you pass foo as an argument you get a pointer to a pointer to an int (with knowledge if you can hang onto it that there are more pointers to ints lined up in memory)
      - tpoacher 2y ago
        Yes, but this is different: int (* foo) [3] This is a pointer to an array of 3 ints. And you could pass this to an appropriate function as an argument, to pass the whole array, not just a decayed pointer. And more generally, I'd group things as unambiguously as possible even in your example: int * (foo [3]) to make the intent clearer
theanonymousone 2y ago
I'm not a C programmer but your comment reminds me of all the lame jokes people make about the German language.
danielEM 2y ago
Why do people continue to use this term "code smell", instead of "hard to read code" or something similar, more equivalent??? First seem almost offensive to an author.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  “Code smell” does not mean “hard to read code”, it means “an unreliable but still useful indication that there may be something wrong in the design of the code connected to the piece described as having the ‘smell’”. And the reason it continues to be used is that it is a concise idiom that is useful.
  - danielEM 2y ago
    "an unreliable but still useful indication that there may be something wrong in the design of the code" Well, but you just proved the point - it can be described in non offensive manner. And more over, judging something based on gut feeling ("indication") may be actually even worse, as you may offend someone who did actually a good job. Sorry if "nit picking", recently was reading a lot about burn outs in the industry, and this is a thing that did catch my attention...
    - tpoacher 2y ago
      I don't think it's meant to be offensive. It's "smell" in the same sense as "something smells fishy here", or "I smell trouble", with smell serving the analogy of being the least specific of your senses, alluding to having a non-specific feeling rather than hard evidence about something. In theory there's no implication of a "repulsive / offensive smell" or "ew this code smells" in the phrase, like you seem to perceive it. Granted, these things are subjective, but it's similar to complaining about the term black humour being racist, when black in this context is not meant to have any racial context.
      - danielEM 2y ago
        Agree, these are subjective, at the same time, when I think of it again, from technical standpoint such a comment or CR would be very low quality comment/CR.

char (*(*x[3])())[5] I'm more of the mindset that writing something like this is probably a code smell to begin with. Is there any reason I'm not thinking of r

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

CuriousCosmic 2y ago

the function signature certainly should be type def-ed. i.e. typedef char (*fn())[5]; and then you have the original as fn x [3];

fsckboy 2y ago
I don't keep up with the latest C shenanigans, cuz I like C the way it was, but have they change something where "pointer to an array[5]" is a meaningful distinction to draw? I mean, "a pointer to an array of X" is simply "a pointer to X" and using hungarian notation, you can encode the knowledge "this pointer can be incremented" into its name. and typedef'ing *function declarations? who has families of functions with the same type signatures that they want to point to?
- CuriousCosmic 2y ago
  > but have they change something where "pointer to an array[5]" is a meaningful distinction to draw This has been a meaningful distinction since at least C99. > "a pointer to an array of X" is simply "a pointer to X" They aren't actually the same. The former can be decayed into the latter but they aren't actually equivalent and you'll get type mismatches if you try to treat them as the same thing. > who has families of functions with the same type signatures that they want to point to An example is callbacks or handlers for responding to interrupt requests. A lot of hardware interface code relies on typedef-ed function decls because very often you are passing user side functions through your interface so that you can stash those function pointers somewhere and invoke them when some event occurs.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- kelnos 2y ago
  > "a pointer to an array of X" is simply "a pointer to X" I don't believe these two are the same. An "array of X" indeed decays to a "pointer to X". But a "pointer to an array of X" is something else. E.g. int foo[3]; // array of int int *foo; // pointer to int int *foo[3]; // pointer to array of int Perhaps the first two are what you mean, though, and this is just a terminology issue.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    int *foo[3]; // pointer to array of int that's an array of 3 pointers to ints. if you pass foo as an argument you get a pointer to a pointer to an int (with knowledge if you can hang onto it that there are more pointers to ints lined up in memory)
    - tpoacher 2y ago
      Yes, but this is different: int (* foo) [3] This is a pointer to an array of 3 ints. And you could pass this to an appropriate function as an argument, to pass the whole array, not just a decayed pointer. And more generally, I'd group things as unambiguously as possible even in your example: int * (foo [3]) to make the intent clearer

theanonymousone 2y ago

I'm not a C programmer but your comment reminds me of all the lame jokes people make about the German language.

danielEM 2y ago

Why do people continue to use this term "code smell", instead of "hard to read code" or something similar, more equivalent??? First seem almost offensive to an author.

dragonwriter 2y ago
“Code smell” does not mean “hard to read code”, it means “an unreliable but still useful indication that there may be something wrong in the design of the code connected to the piece described as having the ‘smell’”. And the reason it continues to be used is that it is a concise idiom that is useful.
- danielEM 2y ago
  "an unreliable but still useful indication that there may be something wrong in the design of the code" Well, but you just proved the point - it can be described in non offensive manner. And more over, judging something based on gut feeling ("indication") may be actually even worse, as you may offend someone who did actually a good job. Sorry if "nit picking", recently was reading a lot about burn outs in the industry, and this is a thing that did catch my attention...
  - tpoacher 2y ago
    I don't think it's meant to be offensive. It's "smell" in the same sense as "something smells fishy here", or "I smell trouble", with smell serving the analogy of being the least specific of your senses, alluding to having a non-specific feeling rather than hard evidence about something. In theory there's no implication of a "repulsive / offensive smell" or "ew this code smells" in the phrase, like you seem to perceive it. Granted, these things are subjective, but it's similar to complaining about the term black humour being racist, when black in this context is not meant to have any racial context.
    - danielEM 2y ago
      Agree, these are subjective, at the same time, when I think of it again, from technical standpoint such a comment or CR would be very low quality comment/CR.