So true

Not wrong lol

I mean most of these are so unnecessarily hard to type for zero benefit

That's haskell style? Saw it in php once. I did use allman style for a while. Now K&R. I use an rc file for formatter for all projects. It's quite basic with custom line length

Ok Haskell style is the most retarded shit that I have seen in a while.

When I was a noob I used the Ratliff style, because it made more sense to me. But then I realised I was probably the only person on earth using it, so had to back down to K&R.

@Lensflare The semicolons are a monoid in the category of endofunctors, you wouldn't get it

@Demolishun I've no idea from my head which one I use. Gets autoformatted anyway

@Demolishun before I started c I thought that there was a difference based on position of the asterisk. Spaces around expression like ( <expr> ) is insane indeed. I think my clang formatter does it your preferred way regarding asterisk usage btw. Myself did it in the middle. int * var

@Demolishun I'm in your camp too, but I think int *foo; is actually more correct

As far as I know, C and C++ consider foo a pointer variable of type int, instead of a variable of type int pointer

There are only a few cases where the distinction shows itself in syntax though (can't remember them)

@Demolishun Ah right now I remember, here's an example: `int* a, b;` only declares the first variable as a pointer, the second is just an int

https://godbolt.org/z/vdvW41cnh

That has tripped me up before lol

@Demolishun I don‘t want to brag or something but how is it possible that I knew about this thing in C++ and you didn‘t?
I think your main language is C++? 😂

@Lensflare I don't think you can ever be a point where you can't learn something new about c++ lol

@Demolishun I also do every line, never inline

So,you have to declare int *a, *b instead of int *a, b? Damn, keep learning

@retoor there is a reason why none of the languages who were inspired by and came after C/C++, haven’t adopted this multiple-declarations-in-one-line syntax. :)
But I wouldn’t be surprised if something like php had this.

@Demolishun I just realized that I might have learned it when I was doing code golf 😂.
I‘d never use this in normal code either.

You can count the Allman style as a mental disorder as well
Along with tab indentations

@Demolishun

Constructors only run before main for global or static objects, and their order of execution is order of statements.

Did you mean static constructors?

@Demolishun this "no order for compilation units" kind of makes sense for me intuitively 😂.
Maybe I‘m more suited to be a c++ coder than I thought 😅
I fucking hate c++. But I also love it!

I just write and autoformat so nobody will know my mental state 😏

Naturally typing out Kernighan is easy.

foo() {}

And then you just stick your crap in between, and hit newline where necessary.

Allman is does the newline in a different order but still not as bad.

My editor does most of the work though, so I don't think about it.

@Demolishun

Aha, yes, the good ol' static initialization order fiasco.

Which is, in short, undefined behaviour, so if you are relying on it, you're walking on the edge.

It's a very big code smell and you should rework it ASAP.

Also, the way you declare your classes (in CPP struct just means public class) screams C coder left and right XD.

You can, by the way, solve this, by just encasing all these modifications you make of the global into a function each in its own translation unit, then have another function that calls these in whatever order you need. Call it first thing into main() or in a static constructor if you will, and there you go.

For reference, it's called the construct on first use idiom.

Mental disorder is also enforcing particular code style by a compiler itself, instead of using linter. I understand if there's no other way because there's no brackets like in python (but it's interpreter so idk).

@Demolishun
struct Point {
int x, y;
} p, *pPtr;

I only knew about this from this syntax, but at the same time didn't correlate with regular variable syntax of pointers.

@Pogromist I know this syntax and I always wondered who would use this. I mean you are declaring a name for the type anyway, so there is no point in doing it inline.
It would make more sense for anonymous types.

@Lensflare
when it's regular struct declaration, the names before ';' or after '}' are variable declarations of that struct
struct Point { int x, y; } p, *pPtr;
struct Point { int x, y; } p = { 5, 5 }; // you can even initialize it there
struct { int x, y; } p, *pPtr; // variables of that unnamed struct could be declared only once

When it's typedef it makes alias for "struct Point"
typedef struct Point { int x, y; } Point, *PointPtr;
So you can use "Point p = { 5, 5 };" instead of "struct Point p = { 5, 5 };"
When it's anonymous typedef
typedef struct { int x, y; } Point, *PointPtr;
you can only use "Point p" and not "struct Point p"
And it's useful when the type name shows that it's a pointer
PointPtr p = (PointPtr)malloc(sizeof(Point));

@Pogromist yeah, as I said, the anonymous type thing makes sense and is quite nice actually, but naming it (Point) and still using it inline without a typedef is just weird.