Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 01:24:59 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: c99/c++ localised variable definition Message-ID: <p06200774be262215ea42@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20050201234646.GK61409@myrddin.originative.co.uk> References: <20050128173327.GI61409@myrddin.originative.co.uk> <20050131102630.GJ61409@myrddin.originative.co.uk> <20050201180624.GB19624@funkthat.com> <20050201190416.GG61409@myrddin.originative.co.uk> <20050201230437.GD19624@funkthat.com> <20050201234646.GK61409@myrddin.originative.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:46 PM +0000 2/1/05, Paul Richards wrote: > >Surely the issue should be, if you're a good coder and you adhere >to the adopted style, which style is more likely to result in >maintainable code. I suspect that if you're a good coder, or if you have a bunch of good coders looking over your shoulder (like we do here...), then the current style is just as likely to result in good, maintainable code as the localized-variable style that you are proposing. Thus, there does not seem to be any compelling reason to change the style. Just MO, of course. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06200774be262215ea42>