Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:33:39 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Adam David <adam@veda.is> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT avail Message-ID: <199702041933.MAA28784@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199702041941.TAA11400@veda.is> References: <199702041559.IAA27474@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199702041941.TAA11400@veda.is>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ moved to chat, as we're now discussing religion ] > > > for(...) > > > ; > > > > > > where it otherwise is very easy to miss the ; > > > > Then do this: > > > > for(...) > > continue; > > > > Much more obvious what you are doing. > > 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. > 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. > 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). Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702041933.MAA28784>