On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 07:42:12PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > especially if there are more "cases" or (a) and (d) are "enforcing"
> > > prerequisites for "//stuff"...
> >
> > but this loses the semantic information that a and d are mutually exclusive.
> > That's important.
>
> The semantics are the same (if not, it was a typo).
not visibly. You are suggesting that :
if (a) {
} else if (b) {
}
becomes
if (a) {
}
if (b) {
}
I've just lost the information that (a && b) == false. And so has the compiler.
> I find this less obvious in (possibly nested) 'else' branches since I
> always suspect some hidden "fall through cases". This always makes me
> thinking about "obvious" code and forgetting the thing I was going to do...
sometimes your thing is the right thing to do, but it is a case by case thing IMHO
john
--
"Faced with the prospect of rereading this book, I would rather have
my brains ripped out by a plastic fork."
- Charles Cooper on "Business at the Speed of Thought"
