"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 11/17/10 12:00 AM, Jay Byrd wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:55:42 -0700, Rainer Deyke wrote: >> >>> On 11/16/2010 22:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>>> I'm curious what the response to my example will be. So far I got one >>>> that doesn't even address it. >>> >>> I really don't see the problem with requiring that '{' goes on the same >>> line as 'if'. >> >> It *isn't* required. But if you don't put it there, *you get the wrong >> result*. I really don't understand why the problem with Andrei's example >> isn't blatantly obvious to everyone, but I would not want to use any >> product of anyone for whom it isn't. > > Exactly, that comes as a big surprise to me, too, in that discussion. I > can only hypothesize that some readers just glaze over the example > thinking "ah, whatever... a snippet trying to support some naysay", and > they reply armed with that presupposition. >
Sad as it may be, most people, and worse still, most programmers, have no qualms about "safety by convention". That's why they don't see this as a big problem. Safety-by-convention is one of those things that's only recognized as a real problem by people with enough self-discipline and people who have actually been burned enough by dong it wrong.
