Furthermore there are many changes to NumPy internals, including continuing to migrate code from C to C++, that will make it easier to improve and maintain NumPy in the future.

I realise that C can be rather low level a lot of the time, but I'm not sure I'd pick C++ to help keep things easy to maintain. It opens up a Pandora's box of possibilities.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

With a good style/best-practice guide, C++ can be quite productive of a language to work with.

Those kinds of guides typically define which standard/convention to use and which features not to use (cough exceptions cough).

I highly recommend Google's C++ style guide: https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You accidentally added a dot at the end of the link. Here's the fixed one https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I intentionally added a period because it was the end of a sentence.

If your Lemmy app messed it up, then that's a bug in its markdown parser.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm curious about this. The source text of your comment appears that your comment was just the URL with no markdown. For your comment about a markdown parsing bug to be true, shouldn't the URL have been written in markdown with []() notation (or a space between the URL and the period) since a period is a valid URL character? For example, instead of typing https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html., should [https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html.](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html) have been typed?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Huh. This got me curious.

Yes, I did just type a bare URL. Every mature markdown parser I've used turns this into a link, and appropriately handles trailing punctuation.

So I went to the spec, and it's explicitly called out that this is not an autolink. Autolinks must be explicitly surrounded with angle brackets <>.

So yeah \shrug.

https://spec.commonmark.org/0.31.2/#autolinks

Edit to be clear: This means that both of our markdown parsers are wrong relative to the commonmark spec. But I'll argue that if a parser is going to attempt to autolink this, then handling trailing punctuation is better than not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I did not know about autolinks - thanks for the link!

It is interesting how different parsers handle this exact situation. I usually am cautious about it because I typically am not sure how it will be handled if I am not explicit with the URL and additional text.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do you think a style guide is enough for an open source code base? Contributions could be coming from lots of directions, and the code review process to enforce a style guide is going to be a lot of work. Even rejecting something takes time.

[–] balder1993 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This kind of thing can be easily automated nowadays. It’s not really a problem.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Yup, we do it for Python and Javascript at work, and I do it on my Rust projects (and my older C projects). I don't see why C++ should be any more difficult.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Honestly, I prefer C to C++ anyway. If they're going to switch to something, I'd prefer Rust.

But whatever, not my project, not my concern.