Arnd Beißner wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:The following should (sorry, could) be ok: for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { doSomething(); if (amIRight()) cool(); doSomethingElse(); }One point here: If it's not amIRight() but if (amIRight() || ( more stuff follows .............) cool(); doSomethingElse(); you tend to ignore the cool() stuff in favor of doSomethingElse.
Yep. It takes an eye for layout, which seems appropriate.
I can't count the times I've seen people hunt for this kind of
bug (most when changing someone else's code, of course).
Which is why I always use:
if (foo)
doFoo();
On the whole I think you would be served best by forbidding
if (foo) doFoo();
and allowing
if (foo)
doFoo();
else
doBar();
as well as
if (foo) {
doFoo();
} else {
doBar();
}
leaving this issue to personal taste.
This man must be one of them there anarchists.
Just my 2 cents.
Peter -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/ "Lord, to whom shall we go?" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
