Re^2: Paid for crap

char* a, b;
[download]

doesn't do what

char* a;
char* b;
[download]

does (the first one declares one pointer to char, and one char). (Pause for stares of disbelief from non-C programmers.)

This is a shortcoming in C which the supervisor in question is trying to avoid. Explaining the reason in the coding standards document would be a nice idea. Assuming there actually is such a document, that is.

Comment on Re^2: Paid for crap Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Paid for crap by Nkuvu (Priest) on Jan 25, 2007 at 22:32 UTC
The data types were really just integers. The supervisor was just trying to find something wrong with the code, when there really wasn't anything. He had a similar change made to a comment. It was broken up into two lines, he wanted only one long line. Brought defects up in reviews of spreadsheets because columns were too wide, too narrow, et cetera et cetera.	[reply]
Re^4: Paid for crap by j3 (Friar) on Jan 26, 2007 at 04:58 UTC
The supervisor was just trying to find something* wrong with the code,* I've seen this before as well. It seems to happen when less-competent folks get some power and then turn into little tyrants. Actually, outside of programming, you see it all the time with inspectors of all kinds that work in various levels of government.	[reply]
Re^3: Paid for crap by virtualsue (Vicar) on Jan 26, 2007 at 15:38 UTC
Sanctified C programmers, guided by the holy writ (K&R), would never fall into that trap nor lead anyone else into peril. That's because they'd write the above as `char a, b;` [download] Whitespace++.	[reply] [d/l]


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks