On Jun 17, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Michael Schwingen wrote:
- If you are testing that a variable is non-NULL, write that.
Similarly for a test for NULL. Taking the short-cut just makes it
less clear what you are doing and why. Besides, it isn't necessarily
guaranteed that NULL will always be 0. ;
> Rick Altherr wrote:
> > I personally find the excerpted line confusing and clunky. I _do_
> > know what it does, but only because I've written the exact
> same code
> > to handle the error cases returned by stroul. Without
> seeing the rest
> > of the code, here's what I don't like about i
Rick Altherr wrote:
> I personally find the excerpted line confusing and clunky. I _do_
> know what it does, but only because I've written the exact same code
> to handle the error cases returned by stroul. Without seeing the rest
> of the code, here's what I don't like about it:
> - okay is
> -Original Message-
> From: openocd-development-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:openocd-
> development-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Zach Welch
> Sent: dinsdag 16 juni 2009 1:19
> To: open...@duaneellis.com
> Cc: Openocd-Dev
> Subject: Re: [Openocd-developm
On Jun 15, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 17:01 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
On Jun 15, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:14 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
bool okay = *str && !*end && ULLONG_MAX != *ul;
In my long career, I have seen to
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 17:01 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:14 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
> bool okay = *str && !*end && ULLONG_MAX != *ul;
> >>
> >> In my long career, I have seen too many poor souls - incl
zack> Seriously? You think that my efforts have increased the obfuscation?
No, in generally it is _fantastically_ better. But as they say, no good
deed goes unpunished. As I said this is a "nit".
zach> I hope that you can engage in a rational discussion about this
topic.
Simple. Please unde
On Jun 15, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:14 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
bool okay = *str && !*end && ULLONG_MAX != *ul;
In my long career, I have seen too many poor souls - including my
self
become the victim of even my own seemingly simple attempts to
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:14 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
> >> bool okay = *str && !*end && ULLONG_MAX != *ul;
>
>
This fails to demonstrate a mature, professional attitude, but I hope
that you can engage in a rational discussion about this topic.
> In my long career, I have seen too many poor
>> bool okay = *str && !*end && ULLONG_MAX != *ul;
In my long career, I have seen too many poor souls - including my self
become the victim of even my own seemingly simple attempts to reduce the
levels of () and {}. Yes, there are cases where it gets a little too
deep, but there must
10 matches
Mail list logo
