From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4203 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2019 22:02:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4177 invoked by uid 89); 5 Dec 2019 22:02:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=card X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 22:02:10 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id xB5M25u1010571; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:02:05 -0600 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id xB5M24na010570; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:02:04 -0600 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 22:02:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Marek Polacek Cc: Jonathan Wakely , Michael Matz , Thomas Schwinge , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org List" Subject: Re: [RFC] Characters per line: from punch card (80) to line printer (132) (was: [Patch][OpenMP/OpenACC/Fortran] Fix mapping of optional (present|absent) arguments) Message-ID: <20191205220204.GM3152@gate.crashing.org> References: <8be82276-81b1-817c-fcd2-51f24f5fe2d2@codesourcery.com> <20191205151515.GS10088@tucnak> <87lfrq6ahm.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> <20191205200650.GI3152@gate.crashing.org> <20191205203815.GO119925@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191205203815.GO119925@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00384.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 03:38:15PM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 02:06:50PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > When you're forced to uglify every variable with a leading __ you run > > > out of characters pretty damn quickly. > > > > If using this "nice feature" forces you to uglify your code, then maybe > > it is not such a nice feature, and you should not use it. > > I disagree, it is a nice feature, without quotes. It's Good Style not to > leak variables into enclosing scopes. It *is* a quote, from Jonathan's mail. Why is this Good Style? (And according to who?) > > If you have issues with scoping your functions are WAY too long already. > > I don't think that's the case here. Then it does not hurt to have a local that is visible in slightly longer scope than necessary. Simpler code is better code. Segher