On 26/1/07 01:44, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2007, at 01:31 UTC, Daniel Stenning wrote: > >> In C , one can both assign a variable to something and test it - all >> within the IF test. > > A horrid practice which is a common source of errors. > >> Although this is often considered "bad form" and not easy to read, it >> is sometimes a useful thing to be able to do, and can even make for >> simpler to read code, and sometimes even slightly speedier code. > > It's a myth that it makes for speedier code. Well if the alternative ways of coding such stuff requires more lines of code ( often involving many more tests branches than would otherwise be necessary ) then that is necessarily taking up more computing steps. > I also don't see how you > can say that it makes for simpler to read code. Perhaps it is > occasionally useful, but those times are pretty rare IMHO. Useful - particularly in those cases when one would like to keep an If then Elseif Elseif Elseif Else End if Code section intact. I find that often I am forced to break up such constructs, merely because I cannot to the above. > >> For example in C we can write: >> >> myClass* myRef; >> if ( myRef = getA() != NULL ) > > Yes, and does this do: > > 1. assign myRef to the truth of "getA() != NULL", and then branch > based on this same value? Or does it > 2. assign myRef to the result of getA(), and then branch based on > whether it's != NULL? > Its for the above reason that I propose NOT to use the = for assignment. > I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but it depends on the operator > precedence in the language, and I certainly wouldn't write code that > depends on it, because the future reader of this code (possibly me) may > well misunderstand my intent, even if I get it right today. > >> For any new REALbasic equivalent to this kind of thing, I do not >> think we should use the = sign to do the assignment, as that would >> lead to confusion. We need some othe new keyword , such as "FROM", or >> "ASSIGNFROM" etc , or maybe a new operator like <- . > > Well, that would certainly make it clearer. Still not something I > would wish on the language, but of course opinions may differ, and I > respect your right to yours. Like most things in a rich language - it would still be down to the coder to ensure such a feature was used sparingly and only when necessary. > >> I am sure there are plenty of "BASIC" purists who will say this >> would unnecessarily "pollute" the language ;) > > (raises hand and waves it enthusiastically) Here's one! > > Cheers, > - Joe > > -- > Joe Strout -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Verified Express, LLC "Making the Internet a Better Place" > http://www.verex.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: > <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> > > Search the archives of this list here: > <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html> > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
