Re: [dev] less(1) replacement?

From: Alex Pilon <>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:29:38 -0400

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:10:32AM +0000, wrote:
> C syntax is already *WAY* too rich. Many of the linux kernel coding
> guidelines are actually a sort of an emphase of this point. […] to be
> polite some things are "not recommended": […] I go a bit farther: no
> enum either

Why not? Sure, it's not real type safety, but it's an annotation that
the compiler can use to warn you about missing or undefined behaviour.

And I didn't mean typedef enum whatever, just plain old:

    enum foo { bar, baz };


    enum { bar, baz } f;

It's not just syntactic sugar; far from it.

> And for namespaces (very usefull for static libs), the cpp is far from
> enough.

So you want real namespaces rather than function prefixes or suffixes as
tends to be the game? Or do you mean something else entirely?


Alex Pilon
Received on Tue Aug 29 2017 - 19:29:38 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Aug 29 2017 - 19:36:14 CEST