Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:16:58 -0700 (MST) From: Wes Peters <softweyr@xmission.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT avail Message-ID: <199702051516.IAA08885@obie.softweyr.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <199702041933.MAA28784@rocky.mt.sri.com> References: <199702041559.IAA27474@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199702041941.TAA11400@veda.is> <199702041933.MAA28784@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams writes:
> [ moved to chat, as we're now discussing religion ]
As apprpriate! ;^)
Nate was arguing with somebody about:
for(...)
;
vs.
for(...)
continue;
% I beg to disagree. The previous example is far clearer, since the empty
% statement stands out as empty rather than being a coincidental noop.
> The empty statement stands out like a mistake IMHO.
Neither is particularly elegant. I suggest:
for (...)
{
}
This has the advantage of looking like an explicitly empty code block,
which it is. It also has the advantage of letting you insert and
delete, by editor or #if, as many debugging lines as you need inside the
trailing code block.
% Use
% of 'continue' in this context suggests that a line was deleted or has yet
% to be inserted.
> I say the exact opposite. The continue line implies to me that it's
> intentional, vs. the other way.
Obviously, the use of continue vs. empty statement does not clarify the
issue, so let's explicitly clarify it.
% Of course, style also favours inserting a space before the parenthesis.
> True, but in this manner everyone I've spoken with tends to prefer the
> former over the latter (continue vs. empty semi-colon).
Yes, please. Always: keyword ( and functionname(, no deviations
allowed! ;^)
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702051516.IAA08885>