On Aug 3, 2011, at 9:51 PM, Graham Cox wrote:
> I think the point they wanted to get across was that they didn't want to see
> code like this:
>
> if( someFunction() && someOtherFunction()){ ... }
>
> instead of:
>
> if( someFunction())
> {
> if( someOtherFunction())
> {
> ....
> }
> }
This I agree with. I "know"[1] about the short-circuiting behavior of && and
still I'd prefer the conditional flow be super-clear rather than have to think
about operator rules even a tiny bit. But now we're back where we started.
--Andy
[1] Bearing in mind that what we "know" sometimes isn't so. :)
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
