shdocvw: Use array syntax with array elements (Try 2)

[Andrew Talbot]

Jacek Caban wrote:

> Why? Both syntaxes are correct, so it's a matter of style preferences. I
> prefer the style I use and I don't see any reason to change it.
> 
> Jacek

Speaking generally, there is one potential opportunity to create a
hard-to-find bug. If one has something like, say:

    struct tagS { int i; };
    ...
    struct tagS ar[N];

then it is possible for a programmer to subconsciously believe he or she is
accessing the nth element of the array, but to accidentally write

    ar->i = 3;

instead of

    (ar + n)->i = 3;

This would compile and run fine, but would write to the zero'th element
instead of the nth.

Whereas, if one adopts the array style

    ar[n].i = 3;

then it is impossible to have this accident, since the following is
syntactically incorrect.

    ar.i = 3; /* error: request for member ?i? in something
              /* not a structure or union

I suspect I am likely to be a bit irritating, from time to time, in
reporting static issues. But if I find that a genre of report gets
rejected - say, for example, that nobody cares if an enum list ends in a
trailing comma - then I shall just switch off that check. Hopefully, it is
better to be bothered 100 times by me than 100,000 times by a static
analyzer. :)

-- 
Andy.