Hello, FRIGN wrote: >> tests (boolean) >> =============== >> do not test against NULL explicitly (e.g. if (!p) instead of if (p == >> NULL)) >> do not test against 0 explicitly (e.g. if (!strcmp(p, q)) instead of >> if (strcmp(p, q) == 0)) (discuss) > > Yes, yes, yes. See the patches I sent in a few days ago.
By default I read if (!functioncall()) as 'if the function call failed'. I like the (strcmp(p, q) == 0) idiom because I don't fall into the trap of reading the statement as 'if the string comparison failed'. It is the one case I can think of where I prefer an explicit comparison to zero. >> early returns/exits >> =================== > I have no problem with goto. It often simplifies things dramatically > and there's no reason to regulate it or punish its use. Agreed - goto's for cleanup when there is local state or allocations to roll back are a godsend - otherwise use an early return. Everything else I agree with well enough. yours, Bobby
