22 points | by jandeboevrie 3 days ago ago
4 comments
> if (const auto& [is_successful, error_message] = foo(n))
I don't like it. It's hard to reason what exactly serves as condition variable.
Should probably make it explicit in this case, something like: if (const auto& [is_successful, error_message] = foo(n); is_successful)
In a more normal scenario you'd expect to use std::expected here rather than a custom struct with an operator bool.
The return value of foo(n), converted to bool, acts as the condition variable…
Yeah I wouldn't like this in a code review. Add one more line of code so I don't have to investigate foo().
That's my fundamental gripe with C++
int i = 0;
function_0(i,...);
...
function_9(i,...);
which one changes i? It's not obvious in a code review due to default mutable references.
> if (const auto& [is_successful, error_message] = foo(n))
I don't like it. It's hard to reason what exactly serves as condition variable.
Should probably make it explicit in this case, something like: if (const auto& [is_successful, error_message] = foo(n); is_successful)
In a more normal scenario you'd expect to use std::expected here rather than a custom struct with an operator bool.
The return value of foo(n), converted to bool, acts as the condition variable…
Yeah I wouldn't like this in a code review. Add one more line of code so I don't have to investigate foo().
That's my fundamental gripe with C++
int i = 0;
function_0(i,...);
...
function_9(i,...);
which one changes i? It's not obvious in a code review due to default mutable references.