Re: Still no typedef
- From: Andreas Leitgeb <avl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 05 Dec 2007 19:51:29 GMT
Wojtek <nowhere@xxxxx> wrote:
Arnauld.Loyer@xxxxxxxxx wrote :
I don't think it's a debate for the best language, just that declaringBut not now. Modern IDEs remove the "I had to do a lot of typing" issue
some variable using generics can be quite long.
Maybe they save the typing, but they don't help with
reading over that bulk lateron :-)
So the length of the line is moot. But the readability is sure
improved. Rather than chasing down where the typedef was defined
Well, as you mentioned "Modern IDE"s: right-click -> view-definition
(or simply with vim: "<Ctrl>-]" and <Ctrl-T> to jump back, afterwards)
And it could be buried in any
of the many included header files.
Fortunately not in Java :-)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Still no typedef
- From: Lew
- Re: Still no typedef
- References:
- Still no typedef
- From: Robert M. Gary
- Re: Still no typedef
- From: Hunter Gratzner
- Re: Still no typedef
- From: Robert M. Gary
- Re: Still no typedef
- From: Arnauld . Loyer
- Re: Still no typedef
- From: Wojtek
- Still no typedef
- Prev by Date: Re: Great SWT Program
- Next by Date: Re: GUI Builders (including 'vi' and 'Notepad')
- Previous by thread: Re: Still no typedef
- Next by thread: Re: Still no typedef
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|