Prev: is this NP-Hard?
Next: An M/M/n queuing model simulation with Object Pascal and my Thread Pool Engine...
From: red floyd on 25 Apr 2010 02:19
On 4/24/2010 5:54 PM, Andrew Poelstra wrote:

> The alternative here, using the loop structure, would be:
>
> for(i = 0; i< 10&& arr[i].state != READY; ++i)
> ;
> /* now use arr[i], or if i is 10, indicate failure. */
>

As a purely stylistic matter, my empty loops always look like:


for ( begin_expr; test_expr; next_expr)
/* do nothing */ ;

That is, I always explicitly comment the empty loop so that
it's clear that I wanted the loop to be empty.

Makes life easier later on down the line.

From: Juha Nieminen on 25 Apr 2010 03:02
In comp.lang.c++ red floyd <no.spam.here(a)its.invalid> wrote:
> As a purely stylistic matter, my empty loops always look like:
>
> for ( begin_expr; test_expr; next_expr)
> /* do nothing */ ;

No, the proper way of writing an empty loop is:

for(begin_expr; test_expr; next_expr) {}

The empty block makes it explicitly clear that it's intended to be empty,
and not just a typo. (The empty block could also be put in the next line,
below the 'for', if so desired. A matter of style.)
From: Lie Ryan on 27 Apr 2010 15:18
On 04/25/10 16:19, red floyd wrote:
> On 4/24/2010 5:54 PM, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
>
>> The alternative here, using the loop structure, would be:
>>
>> for(i = 0; i< 10&& arr[i].state != READY; ++i)
>> ;
>> /* now use arr[i], or if i is 10, indicate failure. */
>>
>
> As a purely stylistic matter, my empty loops always look like:
>
>
> for ( begin_expr; test_expr; next_expr)
> /* do nothing */ ;
>
> That is, I always explicitly comment the empty loop so that
> it's clear that I wanted the loop to be empty.
>

Stylistically, I would put an empty { } to the side, containing a single
space:

for ( begin_expr; test_expr; next_expr) { }

instead of semicolons. Most brace-language programmer would
unconsciously filter out semicolons from the end of lines, while { } is
much more visible since it's more unusual to open a block only to close
it again.
From: Nick Keighley on 28 Apr 2010 03:26
On 25 Apr, 08:02, Juha Nieminen <nos...(a)thanks.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.lang.c++ red floyd <no.spam.h...(a)its.invalid> wrote:

> > As a purely stylistic matter, my empty loops always look like:
>
> > for ( begin_expr; test_expr; next_expr)
> >    /* do nothing */ ;
>
>   No, the proper way of writing an empty loop is:

alarm bells go off whenever I see a sentence of the form "the proper
way to..."


> for(begin_expr; test_expr; next_expr) {}
>
>   The empty block makes it explicitly clear that it's intended to be empty,
> and not just a typo. (The empty block could also be put in the next line,
> below the 'for', if so desired. A matter of style.)

for (begin_expr; test_expr; next_expr)
;

is my usual form. And I cam across this and was taken with it

for (begin_expr; test_expr; next_expr)
continue;

(the place I'd comtemplate a continue)


From: Kenneth Brody on 28 Apr 2010 09:35
On 4/28/2010 3:26 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On 25 Apr, 08:02, Juha Nieminen<nos...(a)thanks.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.lang.c++ red floyd<no.spam.h...(a)its.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> As a purely stylistic matter, my empty loops always look like:
[... snip "the right way" to write empty loop ...]
>
> for (begin_expr; test_expr; next_expr)
> ;
>
> is my usual form. And I cam across this and was taken with it
>
> for (begin_expr; test_expr; next_expr)
> continue;
>
> (the place I'd comtemplate a continue)

We can discuss "the right way" til the cows come home. However, I think
we'd probably all agree that this is "the wrong way":

for ( begin ; test ; next );

Yes, I've seen it, numerous times, in someone's code.

Even worse is when different editors have caused tab misalignment, and you
end up with:

for ( begin ; test ; next );
if ( this )
do_that();

(I've seen that, too.)

--
Kenneth Brody
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: is this NP-Hard?
Next: An M/M/n queuing model simulation with Object Pascal and my Thread Pool Engine...