On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 05:42:41AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> Just a little and quite formal side note:
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:09:19 -0700, Patrick Mahan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > while (*tp != '\0' && *tp++ != '<');
>
> It's often a good choice, especially for increasing readability
> of code, to code the "empty statement" on a line on its own (as
> you usually put any statements on an own line for clarity), so
> the reader doesn't accidentally take it as and "end of command"
> notification, e. g.
>
> while(1)
> ;
>
> instead of
>
> while(1);
>
> which could be confused with the syntactical meaning of
>
> whatsthis(1);
>
> I'm just mentioning this because I saw this in a programming
> project when I was at university. A young programmer who was
> given the task to look at code a very skilled programmer gave
> him. Somewhere in the code, an endless loop caused the program
> not to work properly. The student could not find this endless
> loop because it was coded in the manner as given above. It was
> not the polite form of for(;;); :-)
yeah; i already fixed this in the pointer version that patrick
suggested.
that's the one nice thing about perl; you gotta use braces even for a
single
clause.
if foo
{
}
while bar
{
}
can't get away with while ();
:-)
gary
>
>
>
>
> --
> Polytropon
> Magdeburg, Germany
> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
> _______________________________________________
> [email protected] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
--
Gary Kline [email protected] http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix
http://jottings.thought.org http://transfinite.thought.org
The 7.31a release of Jottings: http://jottings.thought.org/index.php
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
