Hi,
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 9/19/12, Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> wrote:
> > > The language syntax would bind the conditional into the
> > > intializer, as in
> > >
> > > if (varpool_node *vnode = (node->try_variable ()
> > > && vnode->finalized))
> > > varpool_analyze_node (vnode);
> > >
> > > which does not type-match.
> > >
> > > So, if you want the type saftey and performance, the cascade
> > > is really unavoidable.
> >
> > Just write:
> >
> > varpool_node *vnode;
> >
> > if ((vnode = node->try_variable ()) && vnode->finalized)
> > varpool_analyze_node (vnode);
> >
> > This has been the standard style for the past 2 decades and
> > trading it for cascading if's is really a bad idea.
>
> Assignments in if statements are known to cause confusion.
So? Make it:
varpool_node *vnode = node->try_variable ();
if (vnode && vnode->finalized)
varpool_analyze_node (vnode);
> The point of the change is to limit the scope of the variable
> to the if statement, which prevents its unintended use later.
I'm not worried about this.
> Why do you think cascading ifs is a bad idea?
Precedent. Confusion in case of dangling else (requiring more {}, and
hence even more indentation). Ugly.
Ciao,
Michael.
