Andrew Talbot wrote:
Including some instances that I left out, earlier.
-- Andy.
Changelog: shdocvw: Use array syntax with array elements.
Why? Both syntaxes are correct, so it's a matter of style preferences. I prefer the style I use and I don't see any reason to change it.
Jacek
Jacek Caban wrote:
Why? Both syntaxes are correct, so it's a matter of style preferences. I prefer the style I use and I don't see any reason to change it.
Jacek
Speaking generally, there is one potential opportunity to create a hard-to-find bug. If one has something like, say:
struct tagS { int i; }; ... struct tagS ar[N];
then it is possible for a programmer to subconsciously believe he or she is accessing the nth element of the array, but to accidentally write
ar->i = 3;
instead of
(ar + n)->i = 3;
This would compile and run fine, but would write to the zero'th element instead of the nth.
Whereas, if one adopts the array style
ar[n].i = 3;
then it is impossible to have this accident, since the following is syntactically incorrect.
ar.i = 3; /* error: request for member ?i? in something /* not a structure or union
I suspect I am likely to be a bit irritating, from time to time, in reporting static issues. But if I find that a genre of report gets rejected - say, for example, that nobody cares if an enum list ends in a trailing comma - then I shall just switch off that check. Hopefully, it is better to be bothered 100 times by me than 100,000 times by a static analyzer. :)
-
Andrew Talbot -
Jacek Caban