On 02/10/2011 03:16 AM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 00:04:57 -0500 Christopher Michael<[email protected]> > said: > >>>>> And again here: >>>>> if (info->range&& info->num_values == 2) >>>>> >>>>> Should be: >>>>> if ((info->range)&& (info->num_values == 2)) >>>>> >>>>> disagree here :-). No need to put the first operand between parenthesis. >>>>> Personally, I find that putting parenthesis around expressions that do not >>>>> contain test is an useless and overcharging notation while it is better >>>>> when expressions contain tests such as the second operand. I did modify it >>>>> following your advise. >>>>> >>>> Well, you are of course free to disagree :) BUT the fact remains, in EFL >>>> code it is preferable to use the parenthesis. >>>> >>> Actually we got into a big flame war about this a while back and agreed >>> that in cases where it's something like: >>> if (X&& (!Y)) >>> then it's perfectly fine to not use parens around the X. >> Hmm, news to me. Must have missed that memo ;) ... AFAIK, it's always >> been if ((x)&& (!y)) in EFL for over 5-10 years now... > > this is honsetly a minor enough point on the list - that its a close tie. i > prefer if ((x)&& (y == 3)) myself. i like to clearly group the logic entities > as its clear then just what you meant in the code. > Agreed.
dh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
