[Development] (Bikeshed, pedantic) East constexpr vs West constexpr

[Ahmad Samir]

On 20/9/24 22:15, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Thursday 19 September 2024 16:00:22 Central European Summer Time Thiago
> Macieira wrote:
>> On Wednesday 18 September 2024 22:10:44 GMT-7 Marc Mutz via Development
> wrote:
>>> Enforcing one over the other would make it impossible to follow
>>> https://wiki.qt.io/Things_To_Look_Out_For_In_Reviews#Public_Headers Item
>>> 1 in certain cases. That rule has at least _some_ technical merit.
>>> Whether inline or constexpr comes first has none, IMNSHO.
>>
>> I'm thinking of new code and how we usually write code. We don't enforce the
>> static inline / inline static, for example, but most people write the
>> former. I'm just wondering which one we prefer.
> 
> I prefer which ever one people write.

Back of a paper napkin grep'ing (I didn't check for duplicates, or extraneous 
files in qtbase dir).

In qtbase alone:

$ rg 'inline constexpr' --glob='!3rdparty' | grep -v static | wc -l
253
$ rg 'constexpr inline' --glob='!3rdparty' | grep -v static | wc -l
1173 <<< winner

$ rg 'static inline constexpr' --glob='!3rdparty' | wc -l
21
$ rg 'static constexpr inline' --glob='!3rdparty' | wc -l
56
$ rg 'inline static constexpr' --glob='!3rdparty' | wc -l
3

$ rg 'inline static' --glob='!3rdparty' | grep -v constexpr | wc -l
139
$ rg 'static inline' --glob='!3rdparty' | grep -v constexpr | wc -l
1942

Which makes some kind of sense to me:
- "static keyword always first", that's what I've been told in code reviews (and 
what I tell others when I review their code)

- 'constexpr inline' is more prevalent (1173) than 'inline constexpr' (253)

So, 'static constexpr inline' is what I would type by default (before doubting 
myself and grep'ing in the codebase to see what's used the most in case I've 
forgotten).

> Unlike other orders like east const vs west const, there is no difference in my ability or speed to parse either
> forms.
> 

Good point.


[...]

Regards,
Ahmad Samir

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 236 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20240920/b7f605bb/attachment.sig>