On 21.03.2011 16:10, Robert Jones wrote:
On Mar 21, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Max Sobolev wrote:
I /hate/ lhs/rhs identifiers :( (despite my respect to people that use it (Scott Meyers etc.) :))
How curious... despite all their demonstrable short comings (similarity, redundancy, etc), I think that pair of identifiers are some of the best, most instantly recognisable and understandable identifiers ever coined! Each to their own I guess.
it's fine for asm, ........but in C++ we probably should write: Type operator + (Type const& left_hand_side, Type const& right_hand_side) { . . . } (So far I don't confide that "left hand side" is a right decryption for /lhs/) These argument names are too verbose and /_hand_side/ prefixes are redundant here. We've got: Type operator + (Type const& left, Type const& right) { . . . } left/right are too simple :( but not horrible names. Articulation of /lhs/ and /rhs/ is much longer then /left/ and /right/ words, because former consists of 3 syllables (l - h - s), and later consists of 1 only. i use left/right argument names for binary operators as free functions, and /other/ for unary member functions (+ cctor) with an argument of class type (This later is a boost convention). -- - Do you speak English? Мужик с глубоким вздохом: - Yes I do. А хули толку?