Re: [groff] hyphenation issues

[Ingo Schwarze]

Hi Ralph,

Ralph Corderoy wrote on Sun, May 06, 2018 at 12:19:44AM +0100:
 
>> Even though you are right
> ...
>> i strongly object to your argument.

> I don't know what you think my argument is.

I thought your argument was "usually, writing char const is better
than writing const char".

>> [objective simplicity] undeniably favours "char const",

> That was my point.  Though the widespread conventional method has that
> in its favour, it doesn't mean the more logical consistent one is wrong
> or misleading.  It mainly means the alternative hasn't been considered
> for its merits, just dismissed because it `looks odd'.  A knee-jerker.

Granted.

Well, not so much "looks odd", but "people are not used to it and
get distracted from what really matters".

>> Enjoy changing it all over place.

> Sigh.  I made very clear: "I accept it isn't groff's style".
> I'm not trying to change groff, or anybody's style.
> I am trying to explain how C works because at least two experienced C
> programmers on this list thought they weren't equivalent and that
> Branden and I were therefore mistaken and creating errors in using it.

Sorry for that remark, it was misleading.  I didn't mean to imply
you wanted to rewrite groff, but i see how my remark left that
impression.

>> In practice, coding styles using "char const" are rare to the point
>> that i wasn't even aware until now that they exist at all.

> Same here if I go back a couple of years.

>> It is *not* a coincidence that the colleague you got the idea from
>> "had no external influences".

> That's the one that *persuaded* me of its merits.  Before that, I'd just
> seen it and thought `Why write the equivalent thing in that odd way?'.
> I've seen its use growing.  I suspect more projects will switch.
> Branden was already using that style and that wasn't my influence.
> Perhaps you're in a bit of a silo?  :-)

Perhaps.  :-)

>> This is not one of them, so adopting it is clearly a terrible idea.

> I think you're wrong.  I'm adopting it.  I suspect over the medium term
> its use will grow.  Other aspects of C style have also changed over the
> decades.

That is true, like K&R vs. ANSI style for function definitions,
to name an important one, or "return (0);" becoming "return 0;",
to name a minor, trivial one.

We shall see what the future brings.  In this respect, more style
fragmentation for little gain - since this really isn't what makes
pointers and arrays difficult - seems the most likely outcome to me.
In a little corner where style is still mostly globally consistent
nowadays.

Anyway, that is what style is:  Anyone can have one's own, even if
others dislike it, and there are often arguments both ways.

Yours,
  Ingo