On Wednesday 23 October 2013, [email protected] wrote: > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:01:10 -0300 > From: Werner Almesberger <[email protected]> > Subject: vade retro Pascal - redundant parentheses revisited > To: "English Qi Hardware mailing list - support, developers, use cases > and fun" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <20131022160110.GF1292@ws> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > [ Came across a security-related article that made me think of an > old and constant gripe of mine. Here's my rant, somewhat off-topic. ] > > I've been on a crusade against redundant parentheses for a long time. > They often make it hard to read other people's work and obscure the > programmer's intentions. On the contrary: this kind of "beautification" makes it harder to read a program without a C manual beside you - and since it is all compiled, the execution speed doesn't suffer.
It also protects you from accidental errors, since it's crystal clear what you mean. Even if the C standard would change, it would not affect my code. It is also a sign that the programmer has no intention to use my ignorance in order to install a backdoor. Not that I'm too affected by this discussion, since I mostly write Forth. And since that one uses RPN, there are not parenthesis (at least not for that purpose). So, for practical purposes I'm all for extra parenthesis. It shows intent and consequently makes my life a lot easier. The rest is academic - much like the bishops who discussed how many angels fit on the top of a pin. Hans Bezemer -- I have no Facebook account. Consequently, I have no friends and I don't like anything. Deal with it. Visit our website! http://thebeez.home.xs4all.nl/4tH/ *** Home of the 4tH compiler! *** _______________________________________________ Qi Hardware Discussion List Mail to list (members only): [email protected] Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
