🚀 go-pugleaf

Pete Becker (pete@borland.com) wrote:
: In article <41ki32$p4t@deyke3.fc.hp.com>, rainer@deyke3.fc.hp.com says...
: >Well, I prefer explicit types because they are so much clearer.  I
: >consider typedefs to be extremely bad style, but I suppose it is a
: >matter of personal preference.  The point I was making is that typedefs
: >aren't necessary in C any more than in C++.  Sorry if I offended you.

: "So much clearer"? Really? Which of these two is easier to read?

: typedef void (*sigfunc)(int);
: sigfunc signal(int sig, sigfunc func);

: or

: void (*signal(int sig, void (*func)(int)))(int);

Well, for the first you will need to know what sigfunc is defined as
before you understand it, while the second is simply obvious to any
programmer above the beginner level.

: I am not an idiot, and I will always use the first form rather than the 
: second. Good code is written clearly, not cleverly.

Well, what's so clear about 'sigfunc'?

--
+----------------------------------------------+
|    Rainer Deyke (rainer@mdddhd.fc.hp.com)    |
| "The Earth shall inherit the meek" - Carcass |
+----------------------------------------------+